Internet Policy Rev.最新文献_第6页

The perils of legally defining disinformation 法律定义虚假信息的危险

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-11-04 DOI: 10.14763/2021.4.1584

R. Fathaigh, N. Helberger, Naomi Appelman

引用次数: 6

Internet interconnection infrastructure: lessons from the global South 互联网互联基础设施:来自全球南方的经验教训

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-11-02 DOI: 10.14763/2021.4.1583

Fernanda R. Rosa

引用次数: 2

Policy strategies for value-based technology standards 基于价值的技术标准的政策策略

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1573

Amelia Andersdotter, Lukasz Olejnik

引用次数: 2

Extraterritorial application of the GDPR: promoting European values or power? GDPR的域外适用:促进欧洲价值观还是权力?

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1576

O. Gstrein, A. Zwitter

引用次数: 8

Governing the shadow of hierarchy: enhanced self-regulation in European data protection codes and certifications 治理等级制度的阴影:加强欧洲数据保护法规和认证的自我监管

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1577

Rotem Medzini

引用次数: 4

Personal data ordering in context: the interaction of meso-level data governance regimes with macro frameworks 上下文中的个人数据排序:中观数据治理机制与宏观框架的交互作用

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1581

Balázs Bodó, K. Irion, H. Janssen, A. Giannopoulou

{"title":"Personal data ordering in context: the interaction of meso-level data governance regimes with macro frameworks","authors":"Balázs Bodó, K. Irion, H. Janssen, A. Giannopoulou","doi":"10.14763/2021.3.1581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1581","url":null,"abstract":": The technological infrastructures enabling the collection, processing, and trading of data have fuelled a rapid innovation of data governance models. We differentiate between macro, meso, and micro level models, which correspond to major political blocks; societal-, industry-, or community level systems, and individual approaches, respectively. We focus on meso-level models, which coalesce around: (1) organisations prioritising their own interests over interests of other stakeholders; (2) organisations offering technological and legal tools aiming to empower individuals; (3) community-based data intermediaries fostering collective rights and interests. In this article we assess these meso-level models, and discuss their interaction with the macro-level legal frameworks that have evolved in the US, the EU, and China. The legal landscape has largely remained inconsistent and fragmented, with enforcement struggling to keep up with the latest developments. We argue, first, that the success of meso-logics is largely defined by global economic competition, and, second, that these meso-logics may potentially put the EU’s macro-level framework with its mixed internal market and fundamental rights-oriented model under pressure. We conclude that, given the relative absence of a strong macro level-framework and an intensive competition of governance models at meso-level, it may be challenging to avoid compromises to the European macro framework.","PeriodicalId":219999,"journal":{"name":"Internet Policy Rev.","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127245427","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}

引用次数: 6

Safeguarding European values with digital sovereignty: an analysis of statements and policies 以数字主权捍卫欧洲价值观:声明和政策分析

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1575

Huw Roberts, Josh Cowls, F. Casolari, J. Morley, M. Taddeo, Luciano Floridi

{"title":"Safeguarding European values with digital sovereignty: an analysis of statements and policies","authors":"Huw Roberts, Josh Cowls, F. Casolari, J. Morley, M. Taddeo, Luciano Floridi","doi":"10.14763/2021.3.1575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575","url":null,"abstract":": The European Union (EU) has, with increasing frequency, outlined an intention to strengthen its “digital sovereignty” as a basis for safeguarding European values in the digital age. Yet, uncertainty remains as to how the term should be defined, undermining efforts to assess the success of the EU’s digital sovereignty agenda. The task of this paper is to reduce this uncertainty by i) analysing how digital sovereignty has been discussed by EU institutional actors and placing this in a wider conceptual framework, ii) mapping specific policy areas and measures that EU institutional actors cite as important for strengthening digital sovereignty, iii) assessing the effectiveness of current policy measures at strengthening digital sovereignty, and iv) proposing policy solutions that go above and beyond current measures and address existing gaps. To do this, we introduce a conceptual understanding of digital sovereignty and then empirically ground this within the specific EU context via an analysis of a corpus of 180 EU webpages that have mentioned the term “digital sovereignty” within the past year. We find that existing policies, in particular those pertaining to data governance, help to achieve some of the EU’s specific aims in regard to digital sovereignty, such as conditioning outward data flows, but they are more limited concerning other aims, like advancing the EU’s competitiveness and regulating the private sector. This is problematic insofar as it constrains the EU’s ability to safeguard and promote its values. The policy solutions we propose represent steps towards the further strengthening of the EU’s digital sovereignty and firmer protection of EU values. This paper is part of Governing “European values” inside data flows , a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Kristina Irion, Mira Burri, Ans Kolk, Stefania Milan.","PeriodicalId":219999,"journal":{"name":"Internet Policy Rev.","volume":"2012 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127402970","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}

引用次数: 31

Mitigating the risk of US surveillance for public sector services in the cloud 降低美国监控公共部门云服务的风险

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1578

J. Hildén

引用次数: 2

Beyond the individual: governing AI's societal harm 超越个人:治理人工智能的社会危害

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1574

Nathalie A. Smuha

{"title":"Beyond the individual: governing AI's societal harm","authors":"Nathalie A. Smuha","doi":"10.14763/2021.3.1574","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1574","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I distinguish three types of harm that can arise in the context of artificial intelligence (AI): individual harm, collective harm and societal harm. Societal harm is often overlooked, yet not reducible to the two former types of harm. Moreover, mechanisms to tackle individual and collective harm raised by AI are not always suitable to counter societal harm. As a result, policymakers’ gap analysis of the current legal framework for AI not only risks being incomplete, but proposals for new legislation to bridge these gaps may also inadequately protect societal interests that are adversely impacted by AI. By conceptualising AI’s societal harm, I argue that a shift in perspective is needed beyond the individual, towards a regulatory approach of AI that addresses its effects on society at large. Drawing on a legal domain specifically aimed at protecting a societal interest—environmental law—I identify three ‘societal’ mechanisms that EU policymakers should consider in the context of AI. These concern (1) public oversight mechanisms to increase accountability, including mandatory impact assessments with the opportunity to provide societal feedback; (2) public monitoring mechanisms to ensure independent information gathering and dissemination about AI’s societal impact; and (3) the introduction of procedural rights with a societal dimension, including a right to access to information, access to justice, and participation in public decision-making on AI, regardless of the demonstration of individual harm. Finally, I consider to what extent the European Commission’s new proposal for an AI regulation takes these mechanisms into consideration, before offering concluding remarks. Issue 3 This paper is part of Governing “European values” inside data flows, a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Kristina Irion, Mira Burri, Ans Kolk, Stefania Milan.","PeriodicalId":219999,"journal":{"name":"Internet Policy Rev.","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133958854","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}

引用次数: 36

Value Sensitive Design and power in socio-technical ecosystems 社会技术生态系统中的价值敏感设计和权力

Internet Policy Rev. Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1580

M. Jacobs, Christian Kurtz, Judith Simon, Tilo Böhmann

引用次数: 6