Cyberspace Law eJournal最新文献

{"title":"The Effects of Personal Information on Competition: Consumer Privacy and Partial Price Discrimination","authors":"Francesco Clavorà Braulin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3783657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3783657","url":null,"abstract":"This article studies the effects of consumer information on the intensity of competition. In a two dimensional duopoly model of horizontal product differentiation, firms use consumer information to price discriminate. I contrast a full privacy and a no privacy benchmark with intermediate regimes in which the firms target consumers only partially. No privacy is traditionally detrimental to industry profits. Instead, I show that with partial privacy firms are always better-off with price discrimination: the relationship between information and profits is hump-shaped. Consumers prefer either no or full privacy in aggregate. However, even though this implies that privacy protection in digital markets should be either very hard or very easy, the effects of information on individual surplus are ambiguous: there are always winners and losers. When an upstream data seller holds partially informative data, an exclusive allocation arises. Instead, when data is fully informative, each competitor acquires consumer data but on a different dimension.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121326346","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}

{"title":"BigTech and Platform Finance: Governing FinTech 4.0 for Sustainable Development","authors":"D. Arner, Ross P. Buckley, Kuzi Charamba, Artem Sergeev, D. Zetzsche","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3915275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3915275","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past 150 years, finance has evolved into one of the world’s most globalized, digitized and regulated industries. Digitalization has transformed finance but also enabled new entrants over the past decade in the form of technology companies, especially FinTechs and BigTechs. As a highly digitized industry, incumbents and new entrants are increasingly pursuing similar approaches and models, focusing on the economies of scope and scale typical of finance and the network effects typical of data, with the predictable result of the emergence of increasingly large digital finance platforms. We argue that the combination of digitization, new entrants (especially BigTechs) and platformization of finance – which we describe as FinTech 4.0 and mark as beginning in 2019-2020 – brings massive benefits and an increasing range of risks to broader sustainable development. The platformization of finance poses challenges for societies and regulators around the world, apparent most clearly to date in the US and China. Existing regulatory frameworks for finance, competition, data, and technology are not designed to comprehensively address the challenges to these trends to broader sustainable development. We need to build new approaches domestically and internationally to maximize the benefits of network effects and economies of scope and scale in digital finance while monitoring and controlling the attendant risks of platformization of finance across the existing regulatory silos. We argue for a principles-based approach that brings together regulators responsible for different sectors and functions, regulating both on a functional activities based approach but also – as scale and interconnectedness increase – addressing specific entities as they emerge: a graduated proportional hybrid approach, appropriate both domestically in the US, China and elsewhere, as well as for cross-border groups, building on experiences of supervisory colleges and lead supervision developed for Globally Systemically Important Financial Institutions (G-SIFIs) and Financial Market Infrastructures (FMIs). This will need to be combined with an appropriate strategic approach to data in finance, to enable the maximization of data benefits while constraining related risks.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128105113","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}

{"title":"Cyber Law Vis-À-Vis Net Banking in Indian Sector","authors":"M. S. Ahmed, Akshayaa M R, Dr.N. Gopinathan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3849586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3849586","url":null,"abstract":"\"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal” -Albert Einstein. <br><br>The above-mentioned line quoted by Albert Einstein has put forth the crux of this paper more efficiently. E-Banking is a branch of E-commerce, which has been established and has drastically developed in India recently. The process of banking has been redefined completely after the establishment of E-banking to a whole new level. The process of banking has always been considered as a hectic process that consumes humongous time and effort. Net banking has made the procedures and protocols of banking simpler and easier. The simpler and easier, there is an awaiting question of internet frauds and threats, which arises as a barrier for the further development of online banking. These sorts of mala fide activities by hackers and other digital wrongdoers build a barrier to further explore the scope of technology. We can put forth the definition of cybercrime as any offense/crime committed via any computer or any other computer-based devices. The primary prey for these hackers/digital wrongdoers are the monetary related institutions like banks or any other financial institution. Nevertheless, this paper examines the various encounters and cases, where the E-banking was at stake. It will further describe the history and evolution of E-commerce in India. It will also put forth measures to battle fore-coming threats in the field of E-banking.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125001459","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}

{"title":"Comparing Constitutional Privacy and Data Protection Rights within the EU","authors":"D. Erdos","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3843653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3843653","url":null,"abstract":"Although both data protection and the right to privacy (or respect for private life) are recognised within the EU Charter, they are otherwise generally seen as having very different constitutional histories. The right of privacy is often seen as traditional and data protection as novel. Based on a comprehensive analysis of rights within EU State constitutions, it is found that this distinction is overdrawn. Only five current EU States recognised a constitutional right to privacy prior to 1990, although approximately three quarters and also the European Convention do so today. Subsidiary constitutional rights related to the home and correspondence but not honour and/or reputation are more long-standing and this helps link the core of privacy to the protection of intimacy. Constitutional rights to data protection emerged roughly contemporaneously and were often linked to a general right to privacy but are still only found in around half of EU States. There is also no clear consensus on specific guarantees, although around half of the States which recognise these do include rights to transparency and a slightly lower number right to rectification. This could suggest that data subject empowerment over a wide range of connected information is an important emerging particularity tied to data protection as a constitutional guarantee.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"458 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132207242","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}

{"title":"Putting the Digital Services Act into Context: Bridging the Gap between EU Consumer Law and Platform Regulation","authors":"C. Busch, V. Mak","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3933675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3933675","url":null,"abstract":"The proposed Digital Services Act (DSA) aims to place more responsibility on online platform operators to control information published by users on their websites. That is a welcome development in the light of scandals concerning fake news and the surreptitious influencing of voters through social media platforms. Cambridge Analytica was suspected of influencing the U.S. presidential elections and the Brexit referendum in 2016 through information posted on Facebook. Also, online marketplaces such as Amazon and Airbnb would be required to verify the identity of professional users on their platforms. This could significantly improve the quality of online platforms for users. Despite its selling points, however, the DSA proposal leaves a number of issues untouched. From a consumer law perspective, the proposal could have been more ambitious in particular with regard to effective remedies for misleading information or unsafe products. Instead, the spirit and approach advocated by the proposal seem focused on balancing the dissemination of ‘fake news’ and hate speech with the fundamental right of free speech. The regulation of online marketplaces and of debates in the public sphere are however two very different issues. It would perhaps have been better to regulate them separately, rather than to present a DSA proposal that is aimed at all types of platforms. As it is, we find that the proposal pays too little heed to the needs of economic actors, in particular consumers and small traders, in the platform economy. Should the proposal have gone further? In this short contribution, we discuss a number of points that we find are missing from the proposal or not sufficiently addressed. They are: the position of the DSA in relation to existing EU law (Part 2), the regulation of platform liability for unsafe products (Part 3), the protection of economic rights of platform users in particular in the light of consumer protection under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) (Part 4), and the relation of the DSA to the protection of small traders on online platforms, in particular in the light of the EU’s 2019 platform-to-business (P2B) Regulation (Part 5).","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123123228","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}

{"title":"The CJEU’s Take on Unauthorized Framing of Online Content: (Only) if Technologically Precluded, Then Prohibited","authors":"Giulia Priora","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3836554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3836554","url":null,"abstract":"Following several decisions on the interpretation of the right of communication to the public in the digital environment, the CJEU clarified that embedding a protected work in a website constitutes a copyright violation if it circumvents effective technological protection measures. The systematic and practical significance of the judgement in Case C-392/19 VG Bild-Kunst promises to bring legal certainty into the realm of online uses of creative content and its constant evolution.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125802172","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}

{"title":"Offering Zero-rated Content in the Shadow of Net Neutrality","authors":"G. Colangelo, Valerio Torti","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3749914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3749914","url":null,"abstract":"In the recent Telenor case, the EU Court of Justice has for the first time interpreted the relationship between net neutrality regulation and zero-rating offers, considering net neutrality regulation incompatible with the offer of packages in which data traffic generated by certain applications does not count towards the consumption of the data volume purchased and whereby, once that data volume has been used up, end-users may continue to use those applications without restriction, while other applications are blocked or slowed. However, despite their incompatibility with the net neutrality principle of non-discrimination, zero-rating offers may provide benefits to consumers, fostering broadband consumption and promoting product differentiation, without necessarily leading to the exclusion of content providers. Therefore, a revision of the net neutrality regulation is needed in order to assess this practice in accordance with an ex post case-by-case investigation.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130718386","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}

{"title":"Cryptoasset Regulatory Framework in Japan","authors":"G. Arora","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3720230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3720230","url":null,"abstract":"Japan was the first country to regulate cryptoassets. After the Mt. Gox debacle, Japan issued its regulations governing cryptoassets. Then again in 2018, other cyberattacks misappropriated funds amounting to $580 million, which led to the establishment of Japan Virtual Currency Exchange Association, a self-regulatory body, and further stricter regulations governing cryptoasset exchange providers by revising Payment Services Act, 2009 and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, 1948. Although, the new revised regulations have put an extra burden on the exchange service providers, they are estimated to enhance user protection. This article deals with the regulatory environment surrounding cryptoassets in Japan and further explains the new revisions that have been incorporated in the Payment Services Act, 2009 and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, 1948. <br>","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125275618","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}

{"title":"Can Permissionless Blockchains Avoid Governance and the Law?","authors":"E. Alston, Wilson Law, I. Murtazashvili, Martin Weiss","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3676761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3676761","url":null,"abstract":"Permission-less (or public) block-chain networks are a new form of decentralized private governance in the digital sphere. Though legal scholars recognize the significance of law in the use of block-chain, existing research using legal and institutional perspectives leaves block-chain governance as something of a black box. We provide a more granular analysis, finding that block-chain governance operates on four distinct levels. Governance at the protocol layer involves discrete institutional design choices intended to constrain network members’ incentives in an ongoing sense. Subsidiary governance arises from the need for communities to draft protocol updates and from the fact that governance protocol design choices create discrete concentrations of political power within the network. Competitive governance forces arise because cryptocurrency networks are constrained by the possibility of exit of participants and users to other alternatives. Finally, in terms of superior governance, permission-less cryptocurrency participants and users are subject to a variety of laws and regulations due to how cryptocurrencies implicate property, contracts, tax, and securities law. Since the interaction of these governance aspects shapes the operation of any given network, legal and regulatory governance of block-chain ought to consider permission-less block-chains as confronting political and governance dilemmas much like any complex organization. Predicting the effect legal and regulatory treatment of permission-less block-chains requires an accurate understanding of the incentives of their members, all of which are greatly shaped by the governance forces we outline in detail here.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132548904","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}

{"title":"How Are Cryptocurrency Systems Represented and Who is Liable for Misrepresentation?","authors":"P. Østbye","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3675083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3675083","url":null,"abstract":"Cryptocurrency systems are characterized by arcane technologies and complexity. They may be intended to replace existing infrastructures and assets, but they also serve ideological, political, and speculative agendas. Grand narratives, analogies, mathematical models, and fancy charts, among others, are used to represent their features. Stakeholders often rely on others' representations in their decision-making regarding involvement in cryptocurrency systems as, inter alia, investors, users, validators, and developers of services. Such representations may be misrepresentations for various reasons, such as bias from profit-motivated incentives, lack of understanding, or simply analogies and simplifications gone wrong. This paper addresses the representation of cryptocurrency systems and liability for misrepresentation. Many misrepresentations are likely to escape liability except when special duties to not misrepresent are present. However, by creatively exploring liability theories and causal concepts, inadequate liability gaps may be narrowed. Well-designed misrepresentation liability can serve as regulatory policy for cryptocurrency systems.","PeriodicalId":351127,"journal":{"name":"Cyberspace Law eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125609680","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}