Technology and Internet Jurisdiction

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences
J. Reidenberg
{"title":"Technology and Internet Jurisdiction","authors":"J. Reidenberg","doi":"10.2307/4150653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current technology of the Internet creates ambiguity for sovereign territory because network boundaries intersect and transcend national borders. In this environment, jurisdiction over activities on the Internet has become a battleground for the struggle to establish the rule of law in the Information Society. This essay argues first that the initial wave of cases seeking to deny jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement to states where users and victims are located constitutes a type of 'denial of service' attack against the legal system. In effect, the defenders of hate, lies, drugs, sex, gambling and stolen music use technologically based arguments to deny the applicability of rules of law interdicting their behavior. The essay next shows that innovations in information technology will undermine the technological assault on state jurisdiction. Innovation creates this counter-intuitive effect because more sophisticated computing enlists the processing capabilities and power of users' computers. This interactivity gives the victim's state a greater nexus with offending acts and provides a direct relationship with the offender for purposes of personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Some of these same innovations also enable states to enforce their decisions electronically and consequently bypass the problems of foreign recognition and enforcement of judgments. Finally, the essay argues that the exercise of state power through assertions of jurisdiction can and should be used to advance the development of more granular technologies and new service markets for legal compliance. Technologies should be available to enable Internet participants to respect the rule of law in states where their Internet activities reach. Assertions of state jurisdiction and electronic enforcement are likely to advance this public policy.","PeriodicalId":48012,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","volume":"34 1","pages":"1951"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/4150653","citationCount":"72","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/4150653","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 72

Abstract

The current technology of the Internet creates ambiguity for sovereign territory because network boundaries intersect and transcend national borders. In this environment, jurisdiction over activities on the Internet has become a battleground for the struggle to establish the rule of law in the Information Society. This essay argues first that the initial wave of cases seeking to deny jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement to states where users and victims are located constitutes a type of 'denial of service' attack against the legal system. In effect, the defenders of hate, lies, drugs, sex, gambling and stolen music use technologically based arguments to deny the applicability of rules of law interdicting their behavior. The essay next shows that innovations in information technology will undermine the technological assault on state jurisdiction. Innovation creates this counter-intuitive effect because more sophisticated computing enlists the processing capabilities and power of users' computers. This interactivity gives the victim's state a greater nexus with offending acts and provides a direct relationship with the offender for purposes of personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Some of these same innovations also enable states to enforce their decisions electronically and consequently bypass the problems of foreign recognition and enforcement of judgments. Finally, the essay argues that the exercise of state power through assertions of jurisdiction can and should be used to advance the development of more granular technologies and new service markets for legal compliance. Technologies should be available to enable Internet participants to respect the rule of law in states where their Internet activities reach. Assertions of state jurisdiction and electronic enforcement are likely to advance this public policy.
科技及互联网管辖权
目前的互联网技术造成了主权领土的模糊性,因为网络边界交叉并超越了国界。在这种环境下,对互联网活动的管辖权已成为在信息社会建立法治斗争的战场。本文首先认为,最初一波试图否认用户和受害者所在州的管辖权、法律选择和执法的案件构成了一种针对法律体系的“拒绝服务”攻击。实际上,仇恨、谎言、毒品、性、赌博和盗版音乐的捍卫者利用基于技术的论据来否认禁止他们行为的法律规则的适用性。接下来的文章表明,信息技术的创新将削弱对国家管辖权的技术攻击。创新创造了这种反直觉的效果,因为更复杂的计算需要用户计算机的处理能力和能力。这种互动性使受害者的国家与犯罪行为有了更大的联系,并为个人管辖权和法律选择提供了与犯罪者的直接关系。其中一些创新还使国家能够以电子方式执行其决定,从而绕过外国承认和执行判决的问题。最后,本文认为,通过主张管辖权来行使国家权力可以而且应该用来推动更精细的技术和新的法律合规服务市场的发展。应当提供技术,使互联网参与者能够尊重其互联网活动所涉及的国家的法治。国家管辖权的主张和电子执法可能会推进这一公共政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信