Showing papers in "International Review of Law, Computers & Technology in 2023"
4 citations
TL;DR: The Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) as discussed by the authors was created to coordinate digital regulation between various regulators in the UK, including the Competition and Markets Authority, the Information Commissioner's Office and the Office of Communications.
Abstract: ABSTRACT The shift to online commerce and communication in the global pandemic, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the cancel culture exacerbated by social media platforms have demonstrated our increasing reliance on digital platforms. Digital regulation is receiving increasing scrutiny globally and, in the UK, as exemplified by the recent Digital Markets and Digital Services Act by the European Union and the establishment of the Digital Markets Unit within the Competition and Markets Authority in the UK. In July 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Office of Communications formed the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) to coordinate digital regulation between various regulators. In April 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority also joined the DRCF as a full member. Against this backdrop, the paper explores the coordination of digital regulation in the UK and analyses how effective the DRCF is in contributing to this objective. It is argued that to effectively respond to the challenges posed by digital technologies, coordination between various regulatory authorities must be extended and formalised to avoid fragmented enforcement. Whilst the DRCF is a step in the right direction, it needs to engage more closely with other relevant stakeholders.
TL;DR: In this paper , a governance model is developed to elicit intrinsic, dynamic and ethical values of trust attributed to various elements under a tri-partite framework, by re-conceptualizing the elements of trust and associated values, marking distinction to its interpersonal roots and fiduciary relationships.
Abstract: ABSTRACT ‘: Fiduciary law aims to mitigate the inherent risk of ‘trust’, which helps restore interpersonal trust. It remains to be answered how trust should be governed in an AI-driven socio-technical system where technical and social factors are involved including interpersonal relationships and AI-human interactions. Taking interpersonal trust as the backdrop of analysis, this article seeks answers to this question focusing on healthcare. It firstly draws a conceptual framework regarding 'trust' and investigates its interplay with AI as well as examines how it is governed under the fiduciary law. Subsequently, it upholds a socio-technical system perspective, examining how to enable and sustain trust in an AI-driven socio-technical system. A governance model is then developed to elicit ‘intrinsic’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘ethical’ values of trust attributed to various elements under a tri-partite framework. It is recognised that findings of the literature as to trust, its trajectory and implications can be implemented within the proposed framework. Furthermore, it brings novelty by re-conceptualising the elements of 'trust' and associated values, marking distinction to its interpersonal roots and fiduciary relationships. It is considered this governance model, by upholding a holistic viewpoint, provides a generalisable framework that can construct, maintain and restore trust in AI-driven socio-technical systems.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors investigate four issues that keep the target distinction principle from preventing cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, including its inability to capture the networked nature of critical infrastructure beyond the simple dual-use (military and cyber) purposes.
Abstract: I explore reasons why existing defense has failed to prevent cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. I study one of the least studied notions of cyberspace behavior known as target distinction. Drawn from customary international law, the principle posits that states should tell their wartime targets between combatants and noncombatants and use force only toward military objects. States should not target critical infrastructure, like gas pipelines, because to do so harms civilian populations who use it.I investigate four issues that keeps the principle from preventing attacks on critical infrastructure. The first is its inability to capture the networked nature of critical infrastructure beyond the simple dual-use (military and cyber) purposes. The second defect is the interpretive confusion that the principle generates over the rules of engagement. The third problem is the omission from its coverage of actors other than nation states. By design, the principle condones cyber attacks by nonstate actors on infrastructure, or by those whose linkage to state sponsors cannot be legally established. Finally, the principle is prone to fail when hackers lack proper understanding of what it does and does not allow.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors examine the effect of shadow bans on content distribution without specifically targeting it for removal, and examine the consequential stifling of users' speech, and reveal how the Facebook shadow ban is implemented by blocking dissemination of content in News Feed.
Abstract: At the heart of this paper is an examination of the colloquial concept of a ‘shadow ban’. It reveals ways in which algorithms on the Facebook platform have the effect of suppressing content distribution without specifically targeting it for removal, and examines the consequential stifling of users’ speech. It reveals how the Facebook shadow ban is implemented by blocking dissemination of content in News Feed. The decision-making criteria are based on ‘behaviour’, a term that relates to activity of the page that is identifiable through patterns in the data. It’s a technique that is rooted in computer security, and raises questions about the balance between security and freedom of expression. The paper is situated in the field of responsibility of online platforms for content moderation. It studies the experience of the shadow ban on 20 UK-based Facebook Pages over the period from November 2019 to January 2021. The potential harm was evaluated using human rights standards and a comparative metric produced from Facebook Insights data. The empirical research is connected to recent legislative developments: the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Bill. Its most salient contribution may be around ‘behaviour’ monitoring and its interpretation by legislators.
TL;DR: In this paper , the legal foundations for attributing liability in case accidents are caused by AI systems due to a GNSS malfunctions, in the light of the recent European regulatory initiatives, namely the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive and the revised Product Liability directive.
Abstract: ABSTRACT Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), such as GPS or Galileo, have become indispensable in various sectors, including road traffic, aviation, and emergency response services. With recent technological advancements, GNSS have been incorporated as a fundamental constituent of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Self-driving vehicles, autonomous aircraft, and drones rely increasingly on GNSS, as these technologies are currently the sole source of globally consistent, precise positioning and timing. However, GNSS are not entirely risk-free as satellite signals can be susceptible to interference and other technical malfunctions may cause disruptive impacts on the proper functioning of AI systems. In such context, this article aims to explore the legal foundations for ascribing liability in case accidents are caused by AI systems due to a GNSS malfunctions, in the light of the recent European regulatory initiatives, namely the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive and the revised Product Liability Directive.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors examined the readiness of existing competition law to tackle cases involving algorithms and proposed a competition policy approach in Indonesia to tackle the problem resulted from the use of algorithms.
Abstract: Although the use of algorithms has become increasingly prominent in the digital market, such algorithms are often opaque and prone to risks of making biased decisions. Algorithms could also be used to harm competition, such as by facilitating cartels. Such developments make it necessary to examine the readiness of existing competition law to tackle cases involving algorithms. This paper focuses on analysing Indonesian competition law to address the following issues: (1) how current Indonesian competition law deals with algorithms-related cases; (2) which indicators could detect anti-competitive algorithms; and (3) which competition policy approach could be considered in Indonesia to tackle the problem resulted from the use of algorithms.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors explore reasons why existing defense has failed to prevent cyber attacks on medical facilities and show that factors that are external to the principle are as critical as internal ones in shaping the principle's ineffectiveness.
Abstract: I explore reasons why existing defense has failed to prevent cyber attacks on medical facilities. I look into one of the least studied notions of cyberspace behavior known as the principle of due diligence. The principle posits that states should do their best not to allow their territory to be used for cyber operations that produce adverse consequences for other states. I point out three reasons why the principle has failed to protect medical facilities. First, the principle of due diligence suffers from flaws with its enforcement mechanism and applicability to nonstate hackers. Second, the principle suffers from the lack of specificity in that it has never clarified what potential targets are supposed to be spared. Finally, the principle is prone to fail to mobilize states enmeshed with providers of network infrastructure – internet service providers (ISPs) – to practice due diligence. In sum, my analysis shows that factors that are external to the principle are as critical as internal ones in shaping the principle’s ineffectiveness. While the principle is not the only cause of failure to prevent attacks on medical facilities, it is one of the reasons for the failure.
TL;DR: The recent BILETA conference as discussed by the authors was the first hybrid conference to focus on digital regulation, with a large number of presentations about the topic of creativity in legal regulation, focusing on tax audits and fishing expeditions.
Abstract: As guest editors of the special issue, we are pleased to introduce to you four papers that were presented at the annual BILETA conference, our first hybrid conference since the pandemic. Held at the University of Exeter, the conference was based around the theme of creativity in legal regulation, and had a large number of presentations about the topic. In her insightful article Coordinating Digital Regulation in the UK: Is the Digital Regulation Cooperation Form (DRCF) up to the task? Dr Aysem Diker Vanberg explores the coordination of digital regulation in the UK and effectiveness or otherwise of the DRCF in achieving such coordination. Aysem argues persuasively that in its current form the DRCF may not achieve the objectives of promoting more coherence and collaboration and concludes that to effectively respond to the challenges posed by digital technologies, coordination between various regulatory authorities must be extended and formalised. Liesa Keunen has written about tax audits and fishing expeditions. Very much a current topic, Liesa outlines that technologies ability to collect, process and extract new knowledge has changed the way information can be gleaned for tax administration. Liesa looks at the issue of fishing expeditions, questioning whether tax authorities might be engaging in these. Liesa comes to a number of conclusions: a) that fishing expeditions are prohibited, b) that they are an intentional investigation with a purpose, and c) that speculation and excessiveness are a distinctive conceptual characteristic of a prohibited fishing expedition. In her engaging article The European approach to damage caused by artificial intelligence enabled by global navigation satellite systems, Ioana Bratu provides us with a description of the legislative proposals issued by the European Commission in 2021 and 2022 in the context of AI systems enabled by GNSS. The article describes the legal bases of liability for damage caused by AI enabled by GNSS and critically evaluates the proposed EU solutions. Lastly, Dr Mehmet Unver assessing healthcare as a socio-technical system, focusing on fiduciary relationships and proposed framework. The article draws a conceptual framework for trust, and considers its relationship with AI and how it is governed under fiduciary law. It takes a socio-technical system perspective, and examines how to govern trust in such an AI driven system. Mehmet argues that a holistic viewpoint can provide a generalisable framework that can enable trust in AI drive socio-technical systems.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors analyzed the measures implemented by countries in the field of access and administration of justice, focusing on the use of electronic justice as a comprehensive remote mechanism during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Abstract: The article analyzes the measures implemented by countries in the field of access and administration of justice, focusing on the use of electronic justice as a comprehensive remote mechanism during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study examines the experiences of the European Union and Ukraine to understand the effectiveness of electronic justice in ensuring the right of access to justice. Various scientific methods such as legal-statistical, systematic, formal-legal, and cybernetic methods were employed in the study. The analysis reveals that the measures taken by countries to prevent restrictions on human rights in the judicial system are not perfect and require further development. The study identifies key issues in the practical implementation of electronic justice and provides specific recommendations for improvement. The research fills a gap in comprehensive scientific studies on continuous and effective consideration of court cases during the pandemic. The practical and scientific value of the article lies in its relevance to practitioners and scholars worldwide, who are interested in the realization of the right of access to justice and the functioning of electronic justice. The national experiences and recommendations presented in the article can also be applied by European countries to enhance the effectiveness of their electronic justice systems.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors provide an overview of the main characteristics of the concept using a selection of case law of the ECtHR, CJEU and the EGC, literature and policy documents and draw conclusions on what fishing expeditions possibly are, and which consequences this may have for the legitimacy of big data gathering and use by tax administrations.
Abstract: ABSTRACT The technological ability to collect, process and extract new and predictive knowledge from big data has changed our society. Based on large amounts of information about e.g. location, payments and communication, patterns can be detected and profiles about citizens can be generated and applied. Knowledge acquired from big data is valuable to tax administrations because it makes the global fight against tax fraud more efficient. Big data usage by tax administrations does raise significant legal questions, however, one being the extent to which such use could qualify as a ‘fishing expedition’. It has been argued that tax administrations are not allowed to search (‘fish’) for information, the existence of which is uncertain. A closer look at the concept of ‘fishing expeditions’ unveils that there is no generally accepted definition, although authors and judges often refer to it. This article provides an oversight of the main characteristics of this concept using a selection of case law of the ECtHR, CJEU and the EGC, literature and policy documents. The identification of these characteristics enabled us to draw conclusions on what fishing expeditions possibly are, and which consequences this may have for the legitimacy of big data gathering and use by tax administrations.