Pub Date : 2022-08-16DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2113435
T. Dowdeswell, N. Goltz
ABSTRACT This paper will first describe some of the unique features of blockchain technology and ‘smart contracts’ used in NFTs. Next, we discuss four ways in which the economic and social potential of NFTs can be derailed, leading to ‘digital enclosures’ whereby large institutional copyright holders reap most of these benefits for themselves through illegitimate – and sometimes unlawful – rent-seeking, as well as the very real potential for fraudulent activities by malicious actors. Finally, we offer some initial suggestions on how to regulate NFTs and blockchain technology to prevent these illegitimate forms of rent-seeking and the ‘digital enclosures’ to which they give rise. Future governance in this area should be directed toward protecting individual artists, content creators, and small businesses over large institutional copyright holders, as do many current laws and regulations.
{"title":"NFTs and the enclosure of the digital realm","authors":"T. Dowdeswell, N. Goltz","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2113435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2113435","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper will first describe some of the unique features of blockchain technology and ‘smart contracts’ used in NFTs. Next, we discuss four ways in which the economic and social potential of NFTs can be derailed, leading to ‘digital enclosures’ whereby large institutional copyright holders reap most of these benefits for themselves through illegitimate – and sometimes unlawful – rent-seeking, as well as the very real potential for fraudulent activities by malicious actors. Finally, we offer some initial suggestions on how to regulate NFTs and blockchain technology to prevent these illegitimate forms of rent-seeking and the ‘digital enclosures’ to which they give rise. Future governance in this area should be directed toward protecting individual artists, content creators, and small businesses over large institutional copyright holders, as do many current laws and regulations.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"32 1","pages":"149 - 169"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41465021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-20DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2101295
Marie-Helen Maras, Wendy O’Brien
ABSTRACT The unprecedented global public health crisis posed by the COVID-19 pandemic has caused mass upheaval of social, educational, financial, health, and justice systems around the world. Technological and other responses at the national, regional, and international level, designed to contain the spread of COVID-19, have also significantly interrupted the way that we live, work, and interact. This article explores the implications of these response efforts, and their impact on human rights, existing inequalities, and entrenched forms of discrimination. In particular, the article explores the implications of using mass surveillance and registration measures to detect, surveil, and control populations and their movements within and across borders as part of public health responses. The use of digital health credentials in automated social sorting processes and other mass surveillance and registration measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic sets an alarming precedent for future responses to global public health crises.
{"title":"Discrimination, stigmatization, and surveillance: COVID-19 and social sorting","authors":"Marie-Helen Maras, Wendy O’Brien","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2101295","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2101295","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The unprecedented global public health crisis posed by the COVID-19 pandemic has caused mass upheaval of social, educational, financial, health, and justice systems around the world. Technological and other responses at the national, regional, and international level, designed to contain the spread of COVID-19, have also significantly interrupted the way that we live, work, and interact. This article explores the implications of these response efforts, and their impact on human rights, existing inequalities, and entrenched forms of discrimination. In particular, the article explores the implications of using mass surveillance and registration measures to detect, surveil, and control populations and their movements within and across borders as part of public health responses. The use of digital health credentials in automated social sorting processes and other mass surveillance and registration measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic sets an alarming precedent for future responses to global public health crises.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"32 1","pages":"122 - 148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49016903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-08DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2097047
Brian P. Simpson, L. Collingwood
The articles in this special issue arise from papers presented at the Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference in Cardiff in 2021. This was the SLSA’s first ever virtual conference, and this reformed approach was necessitated by the continuing Covid-19 pandemic, which had led to the cancellation of the conference at the University of Portsmouth the previous year. That the Conference could proceed at all serves to reinforce the role of technology as an integral enabling tool and it is this context in which the special issue is located. As the world looks towards resuming a “new normal” in more recent times, it is clear that technology will likely exceed its current prevalence with even more importance and relevance. Accordingly, it is apposite that the articles contained in this special edition were all delivered in the Information Technology, Law and Cyberspace stream of the Annual Conference in Cardiff in 2021. The articles explore a variety of discussions and debates involving the regulation of cyberspace and new information technologies. In their article, “Online Safety and Identity: Navigating Same-Sex Social ‘Dating’ Apps and Networks”, Chris Ashford et al provide a multi-faceted exploration of the digital male samesex dating world in the shadow of the Online Harms Bill and White Paper. The article explores not only recently proposed UK law reforms, but also policy documents, earlier legislation and recent academic contributions to the topical debate in this area. Additionally, a selection of interviews with members of the LGBT community provides unique insights into user expectations and experiences of this constantly evolving arena. Michael Dizon explores the concept of encryption, and how people’s conceptions of privacy and information security in that context align – or do not align with the legal protections provided by the law. While the article approaches the matter based on New Zealand data, it provides a useful example of broader application as to how social understanding and law could be better connected in this space. Privacy Boundaries in Digital Space is the field in which Mo Egan’s informative article is located. It begins with an analysis of the concept of privacy in digital space and reflects on the usefulness of Altman’s and Hughes’ theories of privacy regulation in this area. It also compares the approach of the UK and South Africa in addressing privacy interference particularly in the area of data protection, and considers the implications of the fracturing of responsibility between state and non-state actors within such approaches. Hibah Alessi evaluates the role of Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Resolution, exploring the interaction between humans and machines in this context and asks whether online dispute resolution facilitates individuals’ access to justice. Her conclusions provide a mix of nuanced expectations with respect to the benefits of AI in dispute resolution while also seeing the need for
{"title":"Technology and regulation: which is the tail and which is the dog?","authors":"Brian P. Simpson, L. Collingwood","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2097047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2097047","url":null,"abstract":"The articles in this special issue arise from papers presented at the Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference in Cardiff in 2021. This was the SLSA’s first ever virtual conference, and this reformed approach was necessitated by the continuing Covid-19 pandemic, which had led to the cancellation of the conference at the University of Portsmouth the previous year. That the Conference could proceed at all serves to reinforce the role of technology as an integral enabling tool and it is this context in which the special issue is located. As the world looks towards resuming a “new normal” in more recent times, it is clear that technology will likely exceed its current prevalence with even more importance and relevance. Accordingly, it is apposite that the articles contained in this special edition were all delivered in the Information Technology, Law and Cyberspace stream of the Annual Conference in Cardiff in 2021. The articles explore a variety of discussions and debates involving the regulation of cyberspace and new information technologies. In their article, “Online Safety and Identity: Navigating Same-Sex Social ‘Dating’ Apps and Networks”, Chris Ashford et al provide a multi-faceted exploration of the digital male samesex dating world in the shadow of the Online Harms Bill and White Paper. The article explores not only recently proposed UK law reforms, but also policy documents, earlier legislation and recent academic contributions to the topical debate in this area. Additionally, a selection of interviews with members of the LGBT community provides unique insights into user expectations and experiences of this constantly evolving arena. Michael Dizon explores the concept of encryption, and how people’s conceptions of privacy and information security in that context align – or do not align with the legal protections provided by the law. While the article approaches the matter based on New Zealand data, it provides a useful example of broader application as to how social understanding and law could be better connected in this space. Privacy Boundaries in Digital Space is the field in which Mo Egan’s informative article is located. It begins with an analysis of the concept of privacy in digital space and reflects on the usefulness of Altman’s and Hughes’ theories of privacy regulation in this area. It also compares the approach of the UK and South Africa in addressing privacy interference particularly in the area of data protection, and considers the implications of the fracturing of responsibility between state and non-state actors within such approaches. Hibah Alessi evaluates the role of Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Resolution, exploring the interaction between humans and machines in this context and asks whether online dispute resolution facilitates individuals’ access to justice. Her conclusions provide a mix of nuanced expectations with respect to the benefits of AI in dispute resolution while also seeing the need for ","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"267 - 268"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43306178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-05DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2097046
M. Egan
ABSTRACT In digital space, the boundaries of privacy are often amorphous, symptomatic of human actors’ developing relationship with virtual spaces. As a result, those with little exposure to digital space may simply transplant their ‘real world’ expectations, whereas those who immerse themselves may assimilate a new perspective on privacy. Firstly, this paper considers the need for comparative research in the privacy field. Secondly, it reflects on the utility of Altman’s and Hughes’ theories of privacy regulation in the context of digital space. Thirdly, it discusses how privacy interference has been addressed by UK and South African law, focusing on the evolution of data protection. Fourthly, it reflects on the legal implications of the fracturing of responsibility between state and non-state actors. And, lastly, it draws out the consequences of such responsibilisation and how these relate to Altman and Hughes’ work.
{"title":"Privacy boundaries in digital space: an exercise in responsibilisation","authors":"M. Egan","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2097046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2097046","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In digital space, the boundaries of privacy are often amorphous, symptomatic of human actors’ developing relationship with virtual spaces. As a result, those with little exposure to digital space may simply transplant their ‘real world’ expectations, whereas those who immerse themselves may assimilate a new perspective on privacy. Firstly, this paper considers the need for comparative research in the privacy field. Secondly, it reflects on the utility of Altman’s and Hughes’ theories of privacy regulation in the context of digital space. Thirdly, it discusses how privacy interference has been addressed by UK and South African law, focusing on the evolution of data protection. Fourthly, it reflects on the legal implications of the fracturing of responsibility between state and non-state actors. And, lastly, it draws out the consequences of such responsibilisation and how these relate to Altman and Hughes’ work.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"301 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41650502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-16DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2088064
M. O’Brien
ABSTRACT The presidency of Donald Trump was marked by a period of populist and sometimes extremist right-wing policies and rhetoric, and an escalation of ‘culture wars’ between the left and right in politics and society. He also gained the devoted support of numerous right-wing and so-called alt-right groups, such as QAnon, a conspiracy theory group that first emerged in 2017. This paper takes the novel approach of exploring the existence of a moral panic having formed around the activities of QAnon itself. I suggest that the current regulatory discourses around QAnon are flawed, with insufficient attention being paid to a wider range of extremist groups in assessing how to regulate extremist speech and action.
{"title":"The coming of the storm: moral panics, social media and regulation in the QAnon era","authors":"M. O’Brien","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2088064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2088064","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The presidency of Donald Trump was marked by a period of populist and sometimes extremist right-wing policies and rhetoric, and an escalation of ‘culture wars’ between the left and right in politics and society. He also gained the devoted support of numerous right-wing and so-called alt-right groups, such as QAnon, a conspiracy theory group that first emerged in 2017. This paper takes the novel approach of exploring the existence of a moral panic having formed around the activities of QAnon itself. I suggest that the current regulatory discourses around QAnon are flawed, with insufficient attention being paid to a wider range of extremist groups in assessing how to regulate extremist speech and action.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"32 1","pages":"102 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49022503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-16DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2088060
Hibah Alessa
ABSTRACT The growth of online dispute resolution can be seen both in real terms, via the development of systems to deal with lowcomplexity disputes, and theoretically, with many commentators arguing that such systems represent the future of dispute resolution and the law as a whole. At the same time, substantial developments have been made in the use of artificial intelligence to aid online dispute resolution. Artificial intelligence agents can be identified as existing in a number of different areas of dispute resolution as both an aid and a replacement for traditional resolution techniques. It can be asserted that unless carefully developed, a number of issues will emerge around the way that users interact with these systems. AI-based ODR systems can fail to take into account information which usually affects dispute resolution, like emotional responses or abstract qualities of negotiating parties. Additionally, such systems are not yet equipped to handle certain overarching principles of justice which affect the resolution process and can therefore have a subversively normative effect. Furthermore, it is easy to conceive of a future in which access to justice is hampered rather than helped by the development of AI processes. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the role that AI currently plays in shaping ODR, and how that role might develop in the future. First this paper briefly analysed the nature of the development of AI in ODR and the technology is utilised. This will lend itself to a discussion regarding what direction the industry is going in. Second, the issues surrounding the interface between humans and machines was investigated and the potential effects of these issues upon ODR was evaluated. Finally, the effect of AIs in ODR, with regards to an individual's access to justice, was analysed. It concludes that a significant level of oversight and regulation will be necessary to obviate issues with AI in ODR. Also, this paper provides a series of recommendations regarding how best to proceed with AI in ODR.
{"title":"The role of Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Resolution: A brief and critical overview","authors":"Hibah Alessa","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2088060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2088060","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The growth of online dispute resolution can be seen both in real terms, via the development of systems to deal with lowcomplexity disputes, and theoretically, with many commentators arguing that such systems represent the future of dispute resolution and the law as a whole. At the same time, substantial developments have been made in the use of artificial intelligence to aid online dispute resolution. Artificial intelligence agents can be identified as existing in a number of different areas of dispute resolution as both an aid and a replacement for traditional resolution techniques. It can be asserted that unless carefully developed, a number of issues will emerge around the way that users interact with these systems. AI-based ODR systems can fail to take into account information which usually affects dispute resolution, like emotional responses or abstract qualities of negotiating parties. Additionally, such systems are not yet equipped to handle certain overarching principles of justice which affect the resolution process and can therefore have a subversively normative effect. Furthermore, it is easy to conceive of a future in which access to justice is hampered rather than helped by the development of AI processes. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the role that AI currently plays in shaping ODR, and how that role might develop in the future. First this paper briefly analysed the nature of the development of AI in ODR and the technology is utilised. This will lend itself to a discussion regarding what direction the industry is going in. Second, the issues surrounding the interface between humans and machines was investigated and the potential effects of these issues upon ODR was evaluated. Finally, the effect of AIs in ODR, with regards to an individual's access to justice, was analysed. It concludes that a significant level of oversight and regulation will be necessary to obviate issues with AI in ODR. Also, this paper provides a series of recommendations regarding how best to proceed with AI in ODR.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"319 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47002991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-16DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2088065
L. Collingwood
ABSTRACT Information technology presents the law with ongoing challenges because of its ability to capture, debate and discuss the most intimate aspects of peoples’ lives. This article will consider whether, given the ease and lack of thought processes behind many online communications, the current statutory regulations in the UK are fit for purpose. In particular, it evaluates the consequences of adapting legislation to cover situations that the legislation was never intended to address. The Malicious Communications Act 1988, for example, was originally intended to cover offences that require contemplation and a series of actions and steps in order to make them out. This aspect of calculated and targeted harm is a significant feature of the offence: for example, letters need to be written, addressed, stamped, and posted. However, given the ease and lack of thought processes behind many online communications, extending the legislation to capture this new medium represents a stark transformation of the criminal sanction originally intended and has led to confusion at law. Furthermore, extending the Communications Act 2003 has not been the panacea many expected, and this will be evaluated in tandem. Conclusions will be drawn about the aptitude of the legislation for dealing with the complexities of online communications. .
{"title":"‘Electronic communications media: how to regulate the hate!’","authors":"L. Collingwood","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2088065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2088065","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Information technology presents the law with ongoing challenges because of its ability to capture, debate and discuss the most intimate aspects of peoples’ lives. This article will consider whether, given the ease and lack of thought processes behind many online communications, the current statutory regulations in the UK are fit for purpose. In particular, it evaluates the consequences of adapting legislation to cover situations that the legislation was never intended to address. The Malicious Communications Act 1988, for example, was originally intended to cover offences that require contemplation and a series of actions and steps in order to make them out. This aspect of calculated and targeted harm is a significant feature of the offence: for example, letters need to be written, addressed, stamped, and posted. However, given the ease and lack of thought processes behind many online communications, extending the legislation to capture this new medium represents a stark transformation of the criminal sanction originally intended and has led to confusion at law. Furthermore, extending the Communications Act 2003 has not been the panacea many expected, and this will be evaluated in tandem. Conclusions will be drawn about the aptitude of the legislation for dealing with the complexities of online communications. .","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"382 - 399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44678027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-14DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2088061
C. Giles, Christopher Ashford, K. Brown
ABSTRACT For gay, queer and bisexual men, and men who have sex with men (MSM), the presence of apps such as Grindr, Scruff, Tinder, Recon, and others have long represented a complex online ecosystem in which identities are formed and constructed in a space intensely governed by social, contractual, and – increasingly – criminal law backed regulation and norms. The publication of the UK Government's Online Safety Bill in late 2020 and revised Bill in March 2022 marked a further legal and policy intervention in regulating online harms to improve safety. It follows other interventions, notably the Criminal Justice and Court Act 2015, which criminalises intimate image sharing in cases where it is done without consent and intends to cause distress. This article draws on original focus group data to examine the navigation of these “Dating” Apps and Networks by their users from a novel perspective arguing that the current legal approach risks both over and under-legislating what is a complex and subtle online ecosystem. It focuses on the construction of identities – the characteristic proxies deployed, management of location-aware features, visuality, and images (re)shared. We seek to provide an essential counterpoint to existing and dominant narratives relating to online safety and identity regulation.
{"title":"Online safety and identity: navigating same-sex male social “dating” apps and networks","authors":"C. Giles, Christopher Ashford, K. Brown","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2088061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2088061","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT For gay, queer and bisexual men, and men who have sex with men (MSM), the presence of apps such as Grindr, Scruff, Tinder, Recon, and others have long represented a complex online ecosystem in which identities are formed and constructed in a space intensely governed by social, contractual, and – increasingly – criminal law backed regulation and norms. The publication of the UK Government's Online Safety Bill in late 2020 and revised Bill in March 2022 marked a further legal and policy intervention in regulating online harms to improve safety. It follows other interventions, notably the Criminal Justice and Court Act 2015, which criminalises intimate image sharing in cases where it is done without consent and intends to cause distress. This article draws on original focus group data to examine the navigation of these “Dating” Apps and Networks by their users from a novel perspective arguing that the current legal approach risks both over and under-legislating what is a complex and subtle online ecosystem. It focuses on the construction of identities – the characteristic proxies deployed, management of location-aware features, visuality, and images (re)shared. We seek to provide an essential counterpoint to existing and dominant narratives relating to online safety and identity regulation.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"269 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41756629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-14DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2088063
M. Dizon
ABSTRACT This article examines the disconnect between people’s social conceptions of privacy and information security in relation to encryption vis-à-vis the legal protections offered by law. It describes the social conceptions and expectations of participants based in New Zealand and contrasts these with the applicable laws and legal protections concerning privacy, information security and encryption. In light of incongruence between the social and the legal, the article recommends law and policy developments to better align and connect people’s social conceptions of privacy and information security with the legal protections provided by law. This includes having greater awareness of the relevance of civil and criminal procedure rights to privacy and information security in the context of encryption and providing stronger legal protections to the right against unreasonable search and seizure and the privilege against self-incrimination.
{"title":"Social conceptions versus legal protections of privacy and information security in the context of encryption","authors":"M. Dizon","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2088063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2088063","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the disconnect between people’s social conceptions of privacy and information security in relation to encryption vis-à-vis the legal protections offered by law. It describes the social conceptions and expectations of participants based in New Zealand and contrasts these with the applicable laws and legal protections concerning privacy, information security and encryption. In light of incongruence between the social and the legal, the article recommends law and policy developments to better align and connect people’s social conceptions of privacy and information security with the legal protections provided by law. This includes having greater awareness of the relevance of civil and criminal procedure rights to privacy and information security in the context of encryption and providing stronger legal protections to the right against unreasonable search and seizure and the privilege against self-incrimination.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"287 - 300"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47316351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-26DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2022.2078395
Althaf Marsoof, A. Luco, H. Tan, Shafiq R. Joty
ABSTRACT Online service providers, and even governments, have increasingly relied on Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) to regulate content on the internet. In some jurisdictions, the law has incentivised, if not obligated, service providers to adopt measures to detect, track, and remove objectionable content such as terrorist propaganda. Consequently, service providers are being pushed to use AI to moderate online content. However, content-filtering AI systems are subject to limitations that affect their accuracy and transparency. These limitations open the possibility for legitimate content to be removed and objectionable content to remain online. Such an outcome could endanger human well-being and the exercise of our human rights. In view of these challenges, we argue that the design and use of content-filtering AI systems should be regulated. AI ethics principles such as transparency, explainability, fairness, and human-centricity should guide such regulatory efforts.
{"title":"Content-filtering AI systems–limitations, challenges and regulatory approaches","authors":"Althaf Marsoof, A. Luco, H. Tan, Shafiq R. Joty","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2078395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2078395","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Online service providers, and even governments, have increasingly relied on Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) to regulate content on the internet. In some jurisdictions, the law has incentivised, if not obligated, service providers to adopt measures to detect, track, and remove objectionable content such as terrorist propaganda. Consequently, service providers are being pushed to use AI to moderate online content. However, content-filtering AI systems are subject to limitations that affect their accuracy and transparency. These limitations open the possibility for legitimate content to be removed and objectionable content to remain online. Such an outcome could endanger human well-being and the exercise of our human rights. In view of these challenges, we argue that the design and use of content-filtering AI systems should be regulated. AI ethics principles such as transparency, explainability, fairness, and human-centricity should guide such regulatory efforts.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"32 1","pages":"64 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47997103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：