Law, Innovation and Technology最新文献_第9页

(Re)making data markets: an exploration of the regulatory challenges (二)数据市场:监管挑战探索

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-10-29 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2113671

L. Taylor, H. Mukiri-Smith, Tjaša Petročnik, Laura Savolainen, Aaron Martin

{"title":"(Re)making data markets: an exploration of the regulatory challenges","authors":"L. Taylor, H. Mukiri-Smith, Tjaša Petročnik, Laura Savolainen, Aaron Martin","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2113671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2113671","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Regulating the data market will be one of the major challenges of the twenty-first century. In order to think about regulating this market, however, we first need to make its dimensions and dynamics more accessible to observation and analysis. In this paper we explore what the state of the sociological and legal research on markets can tell us about the market for data: what kind of market it is, the practices and configurations of actors that constitute it, and what kinds of data are traded there. We start from the subjective opacity of this market to researchers interested in regulation and governance, review conflicting positions on its extent, diversity and regulability, and then explore comparisons from food and medicine regulation to understand the possible normative and practical implications and aims inherent in attempting to regulate how data is shared and traded. We conclude that there is a strong argument for a normative shift in the aims of regulation with regard to the data market, away from a prioritisation of the economic value of data and toward a more nuanced approach that aims to align the uses of data with the needs and rights of the communities reflected in it.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"355 - 394"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43308722","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: 4

Digisprudence: the design of legitimate code 不谨慎:合法代码的设计

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-07-14 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977217

Laurence Diver

引用次数: 7

Artificial intelligence and legal disruption: a new model for analysis 人工智能与法律破坏：一种新的分析模型

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2020.1815402

Hin-Yan Liu, M. Maas, J. Danaher, Luisa Scarcella, Michaela Georgina Lexer, L. Van Rompaey

{"title":"Artificial intelligence and legal disruption: a new model for analysis","authors":"Hin-Yan Liu, M. Maas, J. Danaher, Luisa Scarcella, Michaela Georgina Lexer, L. Van Rompaey","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2020.1815402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2020.1815402","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly expected to disrupt the ordinary functioning of society. From how we fight wars or govern society, to how we work and play, and from how we create to how we teach and learn, there is almost no field of human activity which is believed to be entirely immune from the impact of this emerging technology. This poses a multifaceted problem when it comes to designing and understanding regulatory responses to AI. This article aims to: (i) defend the need for a novel conceptual model for understanding the systemic legal disruption caused by new technologies such as AI; (ii) to situate this model in relation to preceding debates about the interaction of regulation with new technologies (particularly the ‘cyberlaw’ and ‘robolaw’ debates); and (iii) to set out a detailed model for understanding the legal disruption precipitated by AI, examining both pathways stemming from new affordances that can give rise to a regulatory ‘disruptive moment’, as well as the Legal Development, Displacement or Destruction that can ensue. The article proposes that this model of legal disruption can be broadly generalisable to understanding the legal effects and challenges of other emerging technologies.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"12 1","pages":"205 - 258"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2020.1815402","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49122353","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: 21

AI versus robot: in search of a domain for the new European civil law 人工智能与机器人:为新的欧洲民法寻找一个领域

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2020.1815404

Paweł Księżak, Sylwia Wojtczak

引用次数: 4

Regulating innovative health technologies: dialectics, dialogics, and the case of faecal microbiota transplants 监管创新健康技术：辩证法、对话法和粪便微生物群移植案例

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2020.1815403

J. Kaldor, Lisa Eckstein, D. Nicol, C. Stewart

{"title":"Regulating innovative health technologies: dialectics, dialogics, and the case of faecal microbiota transplants","authors":"J. Kaldor, Lisa Eckstein, D. Nicol, C. Stewart","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2020.1815403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2020.1815403","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper interrogates the common characterisation of innovative health technologies ‘leading’, while law and regulation ‘lag’ behind. We analysed the case of faecal microbiota transplants (FMT), an innovative procedure whose regulatory status remains in flux worldwide. We searched the literature for papers that described the regulation of FMT, and coded these according to a simple analytic framework. We identified 21 relevant papers. To date, no jurisdiction has implemented FMT-specific regulation. Instead, FMT is dealt with under a range of approaches, which include fitting it within existing regulation, and the use of ‘soft’ law. We found that metaphor, or argument by analogy, played a central role in delineating the potential regulatory options. We also found the relationship between innovation and regulation to be more ‘dialogic’ than oppositional, dialectical, or akin to a race. These findings underscore the importance of case-by-case investigation to determine the applicability of general narratives about law and regulation to specific instances of innovative technologies.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"12 1","pages":"284 - 296"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2020.1815403","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49481176","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: 0

Regulation, innovation and disruption: the European Medicines Agency and adaptive licensing of pharmaceuticals 监管、创新和颠覆：欧洲药品管理局和药品的适应性许可

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2020.1815406

K. Syrett

引用次数: 2

The concept of function creep 功能蠕变的概念

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-03-03 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1898299

B. Koops

{"title":"The concept of function creep","authors":"B. Koops","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1898299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898299","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Function creep – the expansion of a system or technology beyond its original purposes – is a well-known phenomenon. Correction: it is a well-referenced phenomenon. Yearly, hundreds of publications use the term to criticise developments in technology regulation and data governance, but surprisingly, no-one has ever written a paper about the concept itself. This paper fills that gap in the literature, by analysing and defining ‘function creep’. This creates conceptual clarity that can help structure future debates and address function creep concerns. After analysing the term ‘function creep’ itself, I discuss concepts that share family resemblances, including other ‘creep’ concepts and many theoretical notions from STS, economics, sociology, public policy, law, and discourse theory. Function creep can be situated in the nexus of reverse adaptation and self-augmentation of technology, incrementalism and disruption in policy and innovation, policy spillovers, ratchet effects, transformative use, and slippery slope argumentation. Based on this, I define function creep as an imperceptibly transformative and therewith contestable change in a data-processing system’s proper activity. Argumentation theory illuminates how the pejorative ‘function creep’ functions in debates: it makes visible that what looks like linear change is actually non-linear, and simultaneously calls for a much-needed debate about this qualitative change.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"29 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898299","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49019306","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: 40

A critical evaluation of the effectiveness and legitimacy of webblocking injunctions 对网络屏蔽禁令有效性和合法性的批判性评估

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2020.1727058

M. Hyland

引用次数: 0

Recognising rights for robots: Can we? Will we? Should we? 承认机器人的权利:我们能吗?我们会吗?我们应该吗?

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2020.1727063

B. Bennett, A. Daly

引用次数: 17

Blockchain, GDPR, and fantasies of data sovereignty 区块链、GDPR和数据主权的幻想

Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2020.1727094

Robert Herian

引用次数: 17