人机界面设计的法律风险:澳门与主要司法管辖区之比较研究

Victor K Y Chan
{"title":"人机界面设计的法律风险:澳门与主要司法管辖区之比较研究","authors":"Victor K Y Chan","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1004239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Human-computer interface (HCI) design is an essential aspect of modern technology development, which involves the interaction between humans and computers. HCI design can pose legal risks that may result in significant legal liabilities and consequences for any organization adopting the designs. From the standpoint of an HCI designer as opposed to a legal researcher, this article analyzes the legal risks underlying HCI design and the related regulatory framework in the small jurisdiction Macao in comparison with those in some major jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union (EU), and mainland China. Relevant statutes, acts, and academic literature are drawn on to support the analysis. Categories of the aforesaid risks are primarily identified as intellectual property, privacy and personal data protection, accessibility, liability for harm, and cybersecurity breaches, only the first two of which are to be elucidated in this article due to its length limitation. The following findings are highlighted: Macao’s IP regime does not include provisions very specific to HCI designs, unlike the United States, the EU, and mainland China. Macao’s privacy and personal data protection framework is less comprehensive than the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and mainland China’s Cybersecurity Law, Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), and Data Security Law (DSL). In particular, the GDPR additionally mandates “data protection by design and default,” and mainland China’s Cybersecurity Law, PIPL, and DSL are well integrated with cyberspace sovereignty, national security, social and public interests, national sovereignty, and development interests of the state. In summary, in principle, the legal framework in the small jurisdiction Macao governing the legal risks associated with HCI is by and large in line with those in major and substantially larger jurisdictions. Notwithstanding, the former is in general a general miniature of the latter and comparatively devoid of express provisions very specific to and comprehensively covering HCI design. Subject to further research’s confirmation, this phenomenon of generalization and miniaturization may be true of many other small jurisdictions worldwide as reasoned in this article.","PeriodicalId":470195,"journal":{"name":"AHFE international","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Risks Underlying Human-Computer interface (HCI) Design: A Comparative Study on Macao vs. Major Jurisdictions\",\"authors\":\"Victor K Y Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.54941/ahfe1004239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Human-computer interface (HCI) design is an essential aspect of modern technology development, which involves the interaction between humans and computers. HCI design can pose legal risks that may result in significant legal liabilities and consequences for any organization adopting the designs. From the standpoint of an HCI designer as opposed to a legal researcher, this article analyzes the legal risks underlying HCI design and the related regulatory framework in the small jurisdiction Macao in comparison with those in some major jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union (EU), and mainland China. Relevant statutes, acts, and academic literature are drawn on to support the analysis. Categories of the aforesaid risks are primarily identified as intellectual property, privacy and personal data protection, accessibility, liability for harm, and cybersecurity breaches, only the first two of which are to be elucidated in this article due to its length limitation. The following findings are highlighted: Macao’s IP regime does not include provisions very specific to HCI designs, unlike the United States, the EU, and mainland China. Macao’s privacy and personal data protection framework is less comprehensive than the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and mainland China’s Cybersecurity Law, Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), and Data Security Law (DSL). In particular, the GDPR additionally mandates “data protection by design and default,” and mainland China’s Cybersecurity Law, PIPL, and DSL are well integrated with cyberspace sovereignty, national security, social and public interests, national sovereignty, and development interests of the state. In summary, in principle, the legal framework in the small jurisdiction Macao governing the legal risks associated with HCI is by and large in line with those in major and substantially larger jurisdictions. Notwithstanding, the former is in general a general miniature of the latter and comparatively devoid of express provisions very specific to and comprehensively covering HCI design. Subject to further research’s confirmation, this phenomenon of generalization and miniaturization may be true of many other small jurisdictions worldwide as reasoned in this article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":470195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AHFE international\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AHFE international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1004239\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AHFE international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1004239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人机界面(HCI)设计是现代技术发展的一个重要方面,它涉及人与计算机之间的交互。HCI设计可能带来法律风险,可能导致任何采用该设计的组织承担重大的法律责任和后果。本文从HCI设计者而非法律研究者的角度,分析了在澳门这个小司法管辖区,与美国、欧盟和中国大陆等主要司法管辖区相比,HCI设计的法律风险和相关监管框架。相关法规、法案和学术文献被用来支持分析。上述风险的类别主要确定为知识产权、隐私和个人数据保护、可访问性、损害责任和网络安全漏洞,由于篇幅限制,本文仅对前两类进行阐述。以下发现是重点:与美国、欧盟和中国大陆不同,澳门的知识产权制度不包括对人工智能设计非常具体的规定。澳门的私隐及个人资料保护框架不及欧盟的《一般资料保护条例》(GDPR)及中国大陆的《网络安全法》、《个人资料保护法》(PIPL)及《资料安全法》(DSL)全面。特别是《通用数据保护条例》还规定了“数据的设计和默认保护”,中国大陆的《网络安全法》、《PIPL》和《DSL》与网络空间主权、国家安全、社会公共利益、国家主权和国家发展利益融合得很好。综上所述,在澳门这个小司法管辖区,管理与HCI相关的法律风险的法律框架原则上与大得多的主要司法管辖区基本一致。尽管如此,前者总体上是后者的一个缩影,相对缺乏非常具体和全面涵盖HCI设计的明确规定。根据进一步的研究证实,这种普遍化和小型化的现象可能适用于全球许多其他小型司法管辖区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal Risks Underlying Human-Computer interface (HCI) Design: A Comparative Study on Macao vs. Major Jurisdictions
Human-computer interface (HCI) design is an essential aspect of modern technology development, which involves the interaction between humans and computers. HCI design can pose legal risks that may result in significant legal liabilities and consequences for any organization adopting the designs. From the standpoint of an HCI designer as opposed to a legal researcher, this article analyzes the legal risks underlying HCI design and the related regulatory framework in the small jurisdiction Macao in comparison with those in some major jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union (EU), and mainland China. Relevant statutes, acts, and academic literature are drawn on to support the analysis. Categories of the aforesaid risks are primarily identified as intellectual property, privacy and personal data protection, accessibility, liability for harm, and cybersecurity breaches, only the first two of which are to be elucidated in this article due to its length limitation. The following findings are highlighted: Macao’s IP regime does not include provisions very specific to HCI designs, unlike the United States, the EU, and mainland China. Macao’s privacy and personal data protection framework is less comprehensive than the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and mainland China’s Cybersecurity Law, Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), and Data Security Law (DSL). In particular, the GDPR additionally mandates “data protection by design and default,” and mainland China’s Cybersecurity Law, PIPL, and DSL are well integrated with cyberspace sovereignty, national security, social and public interests, national sovereignty, and development interests of the state. In summary, in principle, the legal framework in the small jurisdiction Macao governing the legal risks associated with HCI is by and large in line with those in major and substantially larger jurisdictions. Notwithstanding, the former is in general a general miniature of the latter and comparatively devoid of express provisions very specific to and comprehensively covering HCI design. Subject to further research’s confirmation, this phenomenon of generalization and miniaturization may be true of many other small jurisdictions worldwide as reasoned in this article.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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