Search results

"In this authoritative and topical book, Lee Bygrave examines the role of contract in Internet governance. He examines the reasons for that role and discusses the utility and legitimacy of contractual governance mechanisms. The book is an essential resource for anyone interested in legal aspects of Internet governance, including law on contract, intellectual property, electronic communications, and privacy and data protection."--Provided by publisher

This title is concerned with the following issues: what is the role of contract in governance of the Internet; why does contract play that role; and what is its utility and legitimacy in doing so? In casting light on these issues, the book also describes the general role played by statute in Internet governance along with the reasons for that role. The book shows that contract is often preferred over statute because it enables flexible micro-management of the digital environment more easily than statute does.

This article considers various factors that will shape the potential effect of the Council of Europe's modernised Convention on data protection (Convention 108+) on non-European states' regulatory policy. It does so by elucidating the logic and mechanics of this effect in light of the 'Brussels Effect' that is commonly attributed, in part, to EU data protection law. The central arguments advanced in the article are that the impact of Convention 108+ beyond Europe will rest primarily on the Council of Europe's ideational power tempered by processes of acculturation, and secondarily on the degree to which the EU is willing to use the 'Brussels Effect' as a vehicle for promoting non-European states' accession to the Convention.

In this paper, a critical examination is conducted of Article 25 of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation 2016/679). Bearing the title ʻdata protection by design and by default', Article 25 requires that core data protection principles be integrated into the design and development of systems for processing personal data. The paper outlines the rationale and legal heritage of Article 25, and shows how its provisions proffer considerably stronger support for data protection by design and by default than is the case under the 1995 Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC). The paper further shows that this strengthening of support is in keeping with jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Nonetheless, it is herein argued that Article 25 suffers from multiple flaws, in particular a lack of clarity over the parameters and methodologies for achieving its goals, a failure to communicate clearly and directly with those engaged in the engineering of information systems, and a failure to provide the necessary incentives to spur the ʻhardwiring' of privacy-related interests. Taken together, these flaws will likely hinder the traction of Article 25 requirements on information systems development.