Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1676956
Anna Dunin-Underwood
ABSTRACT Virtual assistants are an example of modern technology that Americans have integrated into their everyday lives. With smart devices' growing sophistication and availability, individuals now share large amounts of personal information with third parties. Following this technological revolution, one might question how much of the traditional third-party doctrine, the doctrine governing information voluntarily given to a third party, survives. But is one's interaction with his virtual assistant in his own home truly a voluntary passing-over of data to a third party? The Supreme Court has recently shown a willingness to curtail the application of the third-party doctrine to new technology. Cases involving new technologies and capabilities will force a reconsideration of whether technology users retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in data that they voluntarily convey that data to a third party. This paper examines the curtilage and third-party doctrines, and analyzes how the Supreme Court has applied both in cases related to developing technologies. It concludes that to guarantee that the Fourth Amendment continues to protect private citizens from unreasonable searches, the Supreme Court needs to significantly limit the reach of the third-party doctrine with regards to modern technology that is in common everyday use.
{"title":"Alexa, can you keep a secret? Applicability of the third-party doctrine to information collected in the home by virtual assistants","authors":"Anna Dunin-Underwood","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2020.1676956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1676956","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Virtual assistants are an example of modern technology that Americans have integrated into their everyday lives. With smart devices' growing sophistication and availability, individuals now share large amounts of personal information with third parties. Following this technological revolution, one might question how much of the traditional third-party doctrine, the doctrine governing information voluntarily given to a third party, survives. But is one's interaction with his virtual assistant in his own home truly a voluntary passing-over of data to a third party? The Supreme Court has recently shown a willingness to curtail the application of the third-party doctrine to new technology. Cases involving new technologies and capabilities will force a reconsideration of whether technology users retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in data that they voluntarily convey that data to a third party. This paper examines the curtilage and third-party doctrines, and analyzes how the Supreme Court has applied both in cases related to developing technologies. It concludes that to guarantee that the Fourth Amendment continues to protect private citizens from unreasonable searches, the Supreme Court needs to significantly limit the reach of the third-party doctrine with regards to modern technology that is in common everyday use.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"101 - 119"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2020.1676956","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43716401","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1705035
B. Blažič, T. Klobučar
ABSTRACT This paper discusses the current issues and proposes legal remedies for removing the barriers to gathering cross-border electronic evidence in crime investigation. Crime and cyber-crime have a huge influence on our modern economy as the yearly damage is estimated to cost hundreds of billions of USD. Efficient fight against cybercrime in the interconnected society faces several barriers due to the inconsistent understanding in cross-border e-evidence search, the legality of the data sought, and the rules for cooperation with the service providers of communication services. The paper evaluates the current legal scene and the existing regulative enabling collection of cross-border electronic evidence. The attitudes and the views towards the current legal instruments enabling efficient cybercrime and crime investigation and cross-border e-evidence collection among the legal practitioners are analysed based on empirical data collected with two surveys. Answers to the research questions ‘if the barriers for cross-border access to e-evidence can be removed with new regulation’ are provided by analysing both the survey results and the new EU regulation for investigation, production and preservation orders.
{"title":"Removing the barriers in cross-border crime investigation by gathering e-evidence in an interconnected society","authors":"B. Blažič, T. Klobučar","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2020.1705035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1705035","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper discusses the current issues and proposes legal remedies for removing the barriers to gathering cross-border electronic evidence in crime investigation. Crime and cyber-crime have a huge influence on our modern economy as the yearly damage is estimated to cost hundreds of billions of USD. Efficient fight against cybercrime in the interconnected society faces several barriers due to the inconsistent understanding in cross-border e-evidence search, the legality of the data sought, and the rules for cooperation with the service providers of communication services. The paper evaluates the current legal scene and the existing regulative enabling collection of cross-border electronic evidence. The attitudes and the views towards the current legal instruments enabling efficient cybercrime and crime investigation and cross-border e-evidence collection among the legal practitioners are analysed based on empirical data collected with two surveys. Answers to the research questions ‘if the barriers for cross-border access to e-evidence can be removed with new regulation’ are provided by analysing both the survey results and the new EU regulation for investigation, production and preservation orders.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"66 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2020.1705035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47881906","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1705033
Marcin Rojszczak
ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to verify whether existing international legal mechanisms provide effective protection of privacy in cyberspace in supra-regional terms. For years, human rights systems have been perceived as effective mechanisms for strengthening the area of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, in the case of activities taking place in cyberspace, the protective standards arising from international treaties seem to be insufficient. Despite the dynamic expansion of legislation in the area of data protection, the scope of the standards being used is still local – national or regional, rather than global. Hence, it is necessary to consider whether attaining an equal level of privacy protection in cyberspace and in physical space does not require putting forward new legal mechanisms that not only overcome the limitations of existing international agreements, but also enhance the trust in and credibility of the global data market, given that it is essential to the development of modern society.
{"title":"Does global scope guarantee effectiveness? Searching for a new legal standard for privacy protection in cyberspace","authors":"Marcin Rojszczak","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2020.1705033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1705033","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to verify whether existing international legal mechanisms provide effective protection of privacy in cyberspace in supra-regional terms. For years, human rights systems have been perceived as effective mechanisms for strengthening the area of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, in the case of activities taking place in cyberspace, the protective standards arising from international treaties seem to be insufficient. Despite the dynamic expansion of legislation in the area of data protection, the scope of the standards being used is still local – national or regional, rather than global. Hence, it is necessary to consider whether attaining an equal level of privacy protection in cyberspace and in physical space does not require putting forward new legal mechanisms that not only overcome the limitations of existing international agreements, but also enhance the trust in and credibility of the global data market, given that it is essential to the development of modern society.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"22 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2020.1705033","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44138834","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 : 2019-10-03DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1677369
Daithí Mac Síthigh
ABSTRACT New approaches to the legal duties of Internet intermediaries are emerging. Current critiques of technology companies in what is said to be a ‘techlash’ overlap with the proposing of new models of liability and responsibilities. Do these shifts in attitude, and the associated set of new ideas, mean that legislative bodies might be more willing, today, to revisit the balance struck in the late 1990s? Changes and challenges to the general provisions applicable to intermediaries, and the introduction of standalone provisions in specific sectors (such as audiovisual media regulation and copyright) are discussed; emphasis is placed on the proliferation of ‘voluntary’ measures (e.g. on illegal content and on disinformation), which provide evidence of changing attitudes. Further arguments include the overlap between available causes of action in relation to Internet communications (e.g. data protection and harassment law), with implications for jurisdiction, remedies, and other matters, and the attractiveness of alternative approaches, including the cross-cutting control of ‘harmful digital communications’ in New Zealand, and proposals to apply specific regulatory regimes, influenced by financial regulation and other fields, to online material. The UK government’s recent ideas regarding a possible ‘duty of care’ for certain intermediaries are assessed in the context of these developments.
{"title":"The road to responsibilities: new attitudes towards Internet intermediaries*","authors":"Daithí Mac Síthigh","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2020.1677369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1677369","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT New approaches to the legal duties of Internet intermediaries are emerging. Current critiques of technology companies in what is said to be a ‘techlash’ overlap with the proposing of new models of liability and responsibilities. Do these shifts in attitude, and the associated set of new ideas, mean that legislative bodies might be more willing, today, to revisit the balance struck in the late 1990s? Changes and challenges to the general provisions applicable to intermediaries, and the introduction of standalone provisions in specific sectors (such as audiovisual media regulation and copyright) are discussed; emphasis is placed on the proliferation of ‘voluntary’ measures (e.g. on illegal content and on disinformation), which provide evidence of changing attitudes. Further arguments include the overlap between available causes of action in relation to Internet communications (e.g. data protection and harassment law), with implications for jurisdiction, remedies, and other matters, and the attractiveness of alternative approaches, including the cross-cutting control of ‘harmful digital communications’ in New Zealand, and proposals to apply specific regulatory regimes, influenced by financial regulation and other fields, to online material. The UK government’s recent ideas regarding a possible ‘duty of care’ for certain intermediaries are assessed in the context of these developments.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"1 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2020.1677369","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49345987","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 : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2019.1664001
Julia Hörnle, M. J. Schmidt-Kessen, A. Littler, Eranjan Padumadasa
ABSTRACT The article focuses on advertising for online gambling products on social media platforms and examines advertising practices from the viewpoint of consumer fairness. It shows how online advertising is fundamentally different from traditional advertising in print media, offline media sites (such as billboards) and broadcasting. The growth of social media usage has created an opportunity for online advertising to exploit ways of advertising which are only beginning to be understood fully and receive regulatory attention, and which, therefore, may exploit current regulatory loopholes. In this article, we identify two major issues in respect of online advertising of online gambling: first the potential for unethical placing of gambling advertising targeted at vulnerable users, and secondly the opaque use of commercial advertising in user-generated content on social media platforms. Having identified these two problems of gambling advertising, we take stock of how the existing regulatory structures deal with gambling advertising online, with a view to making recommendations on how to tackle these problems. We argue that data protection law and gambling regulation have not yet satisfactorily addressed these issues and that a much more radical approach is needed, as set out in the article.
{"title":"Regulating online advertising for gambling – once the genie is out of the bottle … ","authors":"Julia Hörnle, M. J. Schmidt-Kessen, A. Littler, Eranjan Padumadasa","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2019.1664001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1664001","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article focuses on advertising for online gambling products on social media platforms and examines advertising practices from the viewpoint of consumer fairness. It shows how online advertising is fundamentally different from traditional advertising in print media, offline media sites (such as billboards) and broadcasting. The growth of social media usage has created an opportunity for online advertising to exploit ways of advertising which are only beginning to be understood fully and receive regulatory attention, and which, therefore, may exploit current regulatory loopholes. In this article, we identify two major issues in respect of online advertising of online gambling: first the potential for unethical placing of gambling advertising targeted at vulnerable users, and secondly the opaque use of commercial advertising in user-generated content on social media platforms. Having identified these two problems of gambling advertising, we take stock of how the existing regulatory structures deal with gambling advertising online, with a view to making recommendations on how to tackle these problems. We argue that data protection law and gambling regulation have not yet satisfactorily addressed these issues and that a much more radical approach is needed, as set out in the article.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"311 - 334"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2019.1664001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43072076","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}
Recent advancements in technology have changed the way consumers watch movies and television, and disrupted the entertainment industry. In the aftermath of this disruption, artists have more bargaining power than ever. This Note suggests ways to empower the industry “outsider” by providing them with tools to educate themselves and effectively engage in negotiations with publishers. These tools include a collection of standard form contracts with terms tailored to the modern age of entertainment, increased funding for non-profits and labor unions, and appointed attorneys.
{"title":"Fighting Giants: Using Standard Form Contracts to Protect the Industry Outsider","authors":"Derek M. Diemer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3437330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3437330","url":null,"abstract":"Recent advancements in technology have changed the way consumers watch movies and television, and disrupted the entertainment industry. In the aftermath of this disruption, artists have more bargaining power than ever. This Note suggests ways to empower the industry “outsider” by providing them with tools to educate themselves and effectively engage in negotiations with publishers. These tools include a collection of standard form contracts with terms tailored to the modern age of entertainment, increased funding for non-profits and labor unions, and appointed attorneys.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2019-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68593092","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 : 2019-07-19DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2019.1644068
T. Mulder, M. Tudorica
ABSTRACT Research going back to 2008 has shown that a vast majority of the people never read privacy policies (AM McDonald and LF Cranor, ‘The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies’ (2008) 4A JLPI 543). Since then, not a lot has changed (F Schaub and others, ‘Designing Effective Privacy Notices and Controls’ (2017) 99 IEEE 70). Most people formally consent to privacy policies without knowing what happens to their personal data. This odd situation is called the privacy paradox: while people highly value their fundamental right to privacy, they do not act accordingly, especially when it concerns new technologies (M Taddicken, ‘The “Privacy Paradox” in the Social Web’ (2013) 19 JCMC 248). Since more and more people use apps on their mobile phones and wearables to measure their health, it is important to do research in this area. Nowadays, privacy is a popular news item; this might be why more and more companies use privacy both in their business models and as a marketing tool. This raises the question whether people really give ‘informed consent’ to privacy policies, as they seem to rely on marketing statements rather than reading the actual privacy policies themselves.
{"title":"Privacy policies, cross-border health data and the GDPR","authors":"T. Mulder, M. Tudorica","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2019.1644068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1644068","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research going back to 2008 has shown that a vast majority of the people never read privacy policies (AM McDonald and LF Cranor, ‘The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies’ (2008) 4A JLPI 543). Since then, not a lot has changed (F Schaub and others, ‘Designing Effective Privacy Notices and Controls’ (2017) 99 IEEE 70). Most people formally consent to privacy policies without knowing what happens to their personal data. This odd situation is called the privacy paradox: while people highly value their fundamental right to privacy, they do not act accordingly, especially when it concerns new technologies (M Taddicken, ‘The “Privacy Paradox” in the Social Web’ (2013) 19 JCMC 248). Since more and more people use apps on their mobile phones and wearables to measure their health, it is important to do research in this area. Nowadays, privacy is a popular news item; this might be why more and more companies use privacy both in their business models and as a marketing tool. This raises the question whether people really give ‘informed consent’ to privacy policies, as they seem to rely on marketing statements rather than reading the actual privacy policies themselves.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"261 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2019.1644068","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47505842","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 : 2019-07-18DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2019.1644067
Lasantha Ariyarathna
ABSTRACT Peer-to-peer streaming has emerged via software developed for swapping and sharing digital content (such as music, films, TV shows and live sports) with others across the internet. Peer-to-peer streaming has become an expedient technique for end-users, because it allows access to digital content without downloading it. However, while it is a novel advancement in technology, peer-to-peer streaming has heralded new challenges for copyright-protected works. This is because peer-to-peer streaming can affect the right of communication to the public, which is the exclusive right of the copyright owners. The process of making digital content available for others through peer-to-peer streaming can result in copyright-protected work being distributed illegally. This paper examines whether peer-to-peer streaming infringes the right of communication to the public in Australia.
{"title":"Peer-to-Peer streaming and right of communication to the public in Australia","authors":"Lasantha Ariyarathna","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2019.1644067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1644067","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Peer-to-peer streaming has emerged via software developed for swapping and sharing digital content (such as music, films, TV shows and live sports) with others across the internet. Peer-to-peer streaming has become an expedient technique for end-users, because it allows access to digital content without downloading it. However, while it is a novel advancement in technology, peer-to-peer streaming has heralded new challenges for copyright-protected works. This is because peer-to-peer streaming can affect the right of communication to the public, which is the exclusive right of the copyright owners. The process of making digital content available for others through peer-to-peer streaming can result in copyright-protected work being distributed illegally. This paper examines whether peer-to-peer streaming infringes the right of communication to the public in Australia.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"252 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2019.1644067","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43275061","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 : 2019-07-17DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2019.1644065
N. Goltz, Giulia Dondoli
ABSTRACT This paper discusses the principles of scientific research and in turn review legal research that was done using Artificial Intelligence arguing that it is the tools (Artificial Intelligence) that take center stage while the meaning (legal research) is left back stage. In turn, this kind of research does not adhere to the fundamentals of scientific research nor comply with scientific and industry ethical codes.
{"title":"A note on science, legal research and artificial intelligence","authors":"N. Goltz, Giulia Dondoli","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2019.1644065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1644065","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper discusses the principles of scientific research and in turn review legal research that was done using Artificial Intelligence arguing that it is the tools (Artificial Intelligence) that take center stage while the meaning (legal research) is left back stage. In turn, this kind of research does not adhere to the fundamentals of scientific research nor comply with scientific and industry ethical codes.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"239 - 251"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2019.1644065","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47213972","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 : 2019-07-15DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198804727.003.0004
A. Murray
This chapter examines whether the actions of individuals in the digital environment could be regulated. It first considers John Perry Barlow’s 1996 publication of his Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace, in which he asserts that cyberspace was a separate sovereign space where real-world laws and real-world governments were of little or no effect. Barlow’s forceful challenge to lawmakers and law enforcement bodies gave rise to a school of thought known as cyberlibertarianism. The chapter compares cyberlibertarianism with another school of thought called cyberpaternalism, which rejected the notion that cyberspace was immune from regulatory intervention by real-world regulators. It also explains Lawrence Lessig’s modalities of internet regulation, network communitarianism, private regulators of cyberspace, and states’ supranational regulation of cyberspace. The chapter goes on to examine contemporary theories of internet governance and regulation including libertarian paternalism, platform and intermediary regulation, and algorithmic regulation.
本章探讨了个人在数字环境中的行为是否可以受到监管。它首先考虑了John Perry Barlow在1996年出版的《网络空间独立宣言》(Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace)，他在其中断言，网络空间是一个独立的主权空间，现实世界的法律和现实世界的政府几乎没有影响。巴洛对立法者和执法机构的有力挑战催生了一种被称为网络自由主义的思想流派。这一章将网络自由主义与另一种被称为网络家长主义的思想流派进行了比较，后者拒绝接受网络空间不受现实世界监管者监管干预的观点。它还解释了劳伦斯·莱西格的互联网监管模式、网络社群主义、网络空间的私人监管者以及国家对网络空间的超国家监管。本章继续研究当代互联网治理和监管理论，包括自由主义家长式主义、平台和中介监管以及算法监管。
{"title":"4. Regulating the information society","authors":"A. Murray","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198804727.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198804727.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines whether the actions of individuals in the digital environment could be regulated. It first considers John Perry Barlow’s 1996 publication of his Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace, in which he asserts that cyberspace was a separate sovereign space where real-world laws and real-world governments were of little or no effect. Barlow’s forceful challenge to lawmakers and law enforcement bodies gave rise to a school of thought known as cyberlibertarianism. The chapter compares cyberlibertarianism with another school of thought called cyberpaternalism, which rejected the notion that cyberspace was immune from regulatory intervention by real-world regulators. It also explains Lawrence Lessig’s modalities of internet regulation, network communitarianism, private regulators of cyberspace, and states’ supranational regulation of cyberspace. The chapter goes on to examine contemporary theories of internet governance and regulation including libertarian paternalism, platform and intermediary regulation, and algorithmic regulation.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90783236","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：