反对“反对数据例外论”

D. Svantesson
{"title":"反对“反对数据例外论”","authors":"D. Svantesson","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2016-2-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The April 2016 issue of the Stanford Law Review (Volume 68, Issue 4) contains an interesting article by Assistant Professor Andrew Keane Woods. In that article, titled ‘Against Data Exceptionalism’, Woods seeks to challenge the view that the nature of data is incompatible with existing territorial notions of jurisdiction. He argues that the nature of data is not unique, and that existing jurisdictional principles rooted in territoriality can be applied to data. This is my response to his claims. I argue that Woods fails to refute ‘data exceptionalism’, and that his description of relevant jurisdictional issues is based on a misunderstanding leading to a conflation of different jurisdictional questions.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Against 'Against data exceptionalism'\",\"authors\":\"D. Svantesson\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/MUJLT2016-2-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The April 2016 issue of the Stanford Law Review (Volume 68, Issue 4) contains an interesting article by Assistant Professor Andrew Keane Woods. In that article, titled ‘Against Data Exceptionalism’, Woods seeks to challenge the view that the nature of data is incompatible with existing territorial notions of jurisdiction. He argues that the nature of data is not unique, and that existing jurisdictional principles rooted in territoriality can be applied to data. This is my response to his claims. I argue that Woods fails to refute ‘data exceptionalism’, and that his description of relevant jurisdictional issues is based on a misunderstanding leading to a conflation of different jurisdictional questions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2016-2-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2016-2-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2016年4月的《斯坦福法律评论》(第68卷第4期)刊登了助理教授安德鲁·基恩·伍兹的一篇有趣的文章。在那篇题为“反对数据例外论”的文章中,伍兹试图挑战数据的本质与现有的领土管辖权概念不相容的观点。他认为,数据的性质并不是独一无二的,植根于地域性的现有司法原则也可以适用于数据。这是我对他的说法的回应。我认为伍兹未能反驳“数据例外论”,他对相关司法问题的描述是基于一种误解,导致了不同司法问题的合并。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Against 'Against data exceptionalism'
The April 2016 issue of the Stanford Law Review (Volume 68, Issue 4) contains an interesting article by Assistant Professor Andrew Keane Woods. In that article, titled ‘Against Data Exceptionalism’, Woods seeks to challenge the view that the nature of data is incompatible with existing territorial notions of jurisdiction. He argues that the nature of data is not unique, and that existing jurisdictional principles rooted in territoriality can be applied to data. This is my response to his claims. I argue that Woods fails to refute ‘data exceptionalism’, and that his description of relevant jurisdictional issues is based on a misunderstanding leading to a conflation of different jurisdictional questions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Addressing Evolving Digital Piracy Through Contributory Liability for Copyright Infringement: The Mobdro Case Study (Un)lock and (Un)loaded: Regulating 3D-Printed Firearms in the Open-source Era after the 2013 Hysteria Patent-Eligible Invention Requirement Under the European Patent Convention and its Implications on Creations Involving Artificial Intelligence Cybersecurity: Notorious, but Often Misused and Confused Terms How the Two Child Abuse Cases Helped to Shape the Test of Originality of Photographic Works
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1