Regulering
| Dobber, T., Helberger, N., Vreese, C.H. de
JIPITEC, 12 (3), pp. 273-296, 2021. @article{Helberger2021bb,
title = {Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising}, author = {Helberger, N. and Dobber, T. and Vreese, C.H. de}, url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-3-2021/5338}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-08-26}, journal = {JIPITEC}, volume = {12}, number = {3}, pages = {273-296}, abstract = {Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.
|
| Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.
Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators Computer Law & Security Review, 41 , 2021. @article{vanHoboken2021b,
title = {Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Fahy, R.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Smartphone-platforms-as-privacy-regulators.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105557}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-06-10}, journal = {Computer Law & Security Review}, volume = {41}, abstract = {A series of recent developments highlight the increasingly important role of online platforms in impacting data privacy in today's digital economy. Revelations and parliamentary hearings about privacy violations in Facebook's app and service partner ecosystem, EU Court of Justice judgments on joint responsibility of platforms and platform users, and the rise of smartphone app ecosystems where app behaviour is governed by app distribution platforms and operating systems, all show that platform policies can make or break the enjoyment of privacy by users. In this article, we examine these developments and explore the question of what can and should be the role of platforms in protecting data privacy of their users.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } A series of recent developments highlight the increasingly important role of online platforms in impacting data privacy in today's digital economy. Revelations and parliamentary hearings about privacy violations in Facebook's app and service partner ecosystem, EU Court of Justice judgments on joint responsibility of platforms and platform users, and the rise of smartphone app ecosystems where app behaviour is governed by app distribution platforms and operating systems, all show that platform policies can make or break the enjoyment of privacy by users. In this article, we examine these developments and explore the question of what can and should be the role of platforms in protecting data privacy of their users.
|
| Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.
Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, 6 (1), pp. 9-36, 2021. @article{vanHoboken2021,
title = {Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Fahy, R.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Regulating-Disinformation-in-Europe.pdf}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-06-01}, journal = {UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law}, volume = {6}, number = {1}, pages = {9-36}, abstract = {This Article examines the ongoing dynamics in the regulation of disinformation in Europe, focusing on the intersection between the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This Article examines the ongoing dynamics in the regulation of disinformation in Europe, focusing on the intersection between the right to
freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies. |
| Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S.
Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion). @article{Helberger2021b,
title = {Regulation of news recommenders in the Digital Services Act: empowering David against the Very Large Online Goliath}, author = {Helberger, N. and Drunen, M. van and Vrijenhoek, S. and M\"{o}ller, J.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/news/regulation-news-recommenders-digital-services-act-empowering-david-against-very-large}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-02-26}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, note = {Opinion}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Bodó, B.
New Media & Society, 2020. @article{Bod\'{o}2020b,
title = {Mediated trust: A theoretical framework to address the trustworthiness of technological trust mediators}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B.}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444820939922}, doi = {10.1177/1461444820939922}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-17}, journal = {New Media & Society}, abstract = {This article considers the impact of digital technologies on the interpersonal and institutional logics of trust production. It introduces the new theoretical concept of technology-mediated trust to analyze the role of complex techno-social assemblages in trust production and distrust management. The first part of the article argues that globalization and digitalization have unleashed a crisis of trust, as traditional institutional and interpersonal logics are not attuned to deal with the risks introduced by the prevalence of digital technologies. In the second part, the article describes how digital intermediation has transformed the traditional logics of interpersonal and institutional trust formation and created new trust-mediating services. Finally, the article asks as follows: why should we trust these technological trust mediators? The conclusion is that at best, it is impossible to establish the trustworthiness of trust mediators, and that at worst, we have no reason to trust them.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This article considers the impact of digital technologies on the interpersonal and institutional logics of trust production. It introduces the new theoretical concept of technology-mediated trust to analyze the role of complex techno-social assemblages in trust production and distrust management. The first part of the article argues that globalization and digitalization have unleashed a crisis of trust, as traditional institutional and interpersonal logics are not attuned to deal with the risks introduced by the prevalence of digital technologies. In the second part, the article describes how digital intermediation has transformed the traditional logics of interpersonal and institutional trust formation and created new trust-mediating services. Finally, the article asks as follows: why should we trust these technological trust mediators? The conclusion is that at best, it is impossible to establish the trustworthiness of trust mediators, and that at worst, we have no reason to trust them.
|
| Helberger, N.
Digital Journalism, 8 (6), pp. 842-854, 2020. @article{Helberger2020d,
title = {The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power}, author = {Helberger, N.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-14}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, volume = {8}, number = {6}, pages = {842-854}, abstract = {This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere 'intermediaries' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere 'intermediaries' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives.
|
| Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Magalhães, J.C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S.
Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries 2020. @online{Quintais2020c,
title = {Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries}, author = {Quintais, J. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Katzenbach, C. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C. and Schwemer, S. and Riis, T. }, url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RccSMBSjE&t=5s https://www.recreating.eu/public-and-regulatory-framework-of-online-intermediaries-workshop/ https://zenodo.org/record/3833714#.XseaZGgzbIW}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-22}, abstract = {Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020. Slides and report of the event also available at the links below.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020.
Slides and report of the event also available at the links below. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.
2020, (Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019). @techreport{vanHoboken2020b,
title = {Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-14}, abstract = {Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden. Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. }, note = {Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.
2020, (A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019). @techreport{vanHoboken2020c,
title = {The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-14}, abstract = {The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada). The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.}, note = {A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms. |
| Yakovleva, S.
Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy University of Miami Law Review, 74 (2), pp. 416-519, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020,
title = {Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy}, author = {Yakovleva, S.}, url = {https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss2/5/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-27}, journal = {University of Miami Law Review}, volume = {74}, number = {2}, pages = {416-519}, abstract = {Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.
|
| McGonagle, T.
The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 227-253, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055. @inbook{McGonagle2020b,
title = {The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CoE_and_internet_intermediaries.pdf https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/human-rights-age-platforms}, isbn = {9780262039055}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-07}, booktitle = {Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. J\orgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019.}, pages = {227-253}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } |
| Dobber, T., Fahy, R., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.
The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe Internet Policy Review, 8 (4), 2020. @article{Dobber2020,
title = {The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe}, author = {Dobber, T. and Fahy, R. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulation-online-political-micro-targeting-europe}, doi = {10.14763/2019.4.1440}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-01-16}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {8}, number = {4}, abstract = {In this paper, we examine how online political micro-targeting is regulated in Europe. While there are no specific rules on such micro-targeting, there are general rules that apply. We focus on three fields of law: data protection law, freedom of expression, and sector-specific rules for political advertising; for the latter we examine four countries. We argue that the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are necessary, but not sufficient. We show that political advertising, including online political micro-targeting, is protected by the right to freedom of expression. That right is not absolute, however. From a European human rights perspective, it is possible for lawmakers to limit the possibilities for political advertising. Indeed, some countries ban TV advertising for political parties during elections.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In this paper, we examine how online political micro-targeting is regulated in Europe. While there are no specific rules on such micro-targeting, there are general rules that apply. We focus on three fields of law: data protection law, freedom of expression, and sector-specific rules for political advertising; for the latter we examine four countries. We argue that the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are necessary, but not sufficient. We show that political advertising, including online political micro-targeting, is protected by the right to freedom of expression. That right is not absolute, however. From a European human rights perspective, it is possible for lawmakers to limit the possibilities for political advertising. Indeed, some countries ban TV advertising for political parties during elections.
|
| Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.
European Regulation of Smartphone Ecosystems European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL), 5 (4), pp. 476-491, 2019. @article{Fahy2019eb,
title = {European Regulation of Smartphone Ecosystems}, author = {Fahy, R. and van Hoboken, J.}, url = {https://edpl.lexxion.eu/article/EDPL/2019/4/6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/4/6}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-12-13}, journal = {European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL)}, volume = {5}, number = {4}, pages = {476-491}, abstract = {For the first time, two pieces of EU legislation will specifically target smartphone ecosystems in relation to smartphone and mobile software (eg, iOS and Android) privacy, and use and monetisation of data. And yet, both pieces of legislation approach data use and data monetisation from radically contrasting perspectives. The first is the proposed ePrivacy Regulation, which seeks to provide enhanced protection against user data monitoring and tracking in smartphones, and safeguard privacy in electronic communications. On the other hand, the recently enacted Platform-to-Business Regulation 2019, seeks to bring fairness to platform-business user relations (including app stores and app developers), and is crucially built upon the premise that the ability to access and use data, including personal data, can enable important value creation in the online platform economy. This article discusses how these two Regulations will apply to smartphone ecosystems, especially relating to user and device privacy. The article analyses the potential tension points between the two sets of rules, which result from the underlying policy objectives of safeguarding privacy in electronic communications and the functioning of the digital economy in the emerging era of platform governance. The article concludes with a discussion on how to address these issues, at the intersection of privacy and competition in the digital platform economy.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } For the first time, two pieces of EU legislation will specifically target smartphone ecosystems in relation to smartphone and mobile software (eg, iOS and Android) privacy, and use and monetisation of data. And yet, both pieces of legislation approach data use and data monetisation from radically contrasting perspectives. The first is the proposed ePrivacy Regulation, which seeks to provide enhanced protection against user data monitoring and tracking in smartphones, and safeguard privacy in electronic communications. On the other hand, the recently enacted Platform-to-Business Regulation 2019, seeks to bring fairness to platform-business user relations (including app stores and app developers), and is crucially built upon the premise that the ability to access and use data, including personal data, can enable important value creation in the online platform economy. This article discusses how these two Regulations will apply to smartphone ecosystems, especially relating to user and device privacy. The article analyses the potential tension points between the two sets of rules, which result from the underlying policy objectives of safeguarding privacy in electronic communications and the functioning of the digital economy in the emerging era of platform governance. The article concludes with a discussion on how to address these issues, at the intersection of privacy and competition in the digital platform economy.
|
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.
De verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties 2019, (Tussenrapportage oktober 2019). @techreport{vanHoboken2019c,
title = {De verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/verspreiding_desinformatie_internetdiensten_tussenrapportage.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-31}, abstract = {Rapport in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2019-2020, 30821, nr. 91, Tweede Kamer.}, note = {Tussenrapportage oktober 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Rapport in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2019-2020, 30821, nr. 91, Tweede Kamer.
|
| Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Leerssen, P.
Germany proposes Europe's first diversity rules for social media platforms LSE Media Policy Project Blog, 2019 , 2019. @article{Helberger2019,
title = {Germany proposes Europe's first diversity rules for social media platforms}, author = {Helberger, N. and Leerssen, P. and Drunen, M. van}, url = {https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2019/05/29/germany-proposes-europes-first-diversity-rules-for-social-media-platforms/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-06}, journal = {LSE Media Policy Project Blog}, volume = {2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| van Daalen, O.
Het privacy-argument tegen de Dopamine Machine Privacy & Informatierecht, 2018 (2), pp. 39-41, 2018. @article{vanDaalen2018b,
title = {Het privacy-argument tegen de Dopamine Machine}, author = {van Daalen, O.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/PrivacyInformatie_2018_2.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-10-12}, journal = {Privacy & Informatierecht}, volume = {2018}, number = {2}, pages = {39-41}, abstract = {De kinderen van Apple-baas Steve Jobs mochten geen iPad gebruiken. 1 Maar Jobs was niet de enige. Veel techies in Silicon Valley zijn zich bewust van de verslavende effecten van IT \textendash ze hebben de producten namelijk zelf ontwikkeld. En nu steeds meer spijtoptanten oproepen tot regulering van onlinediensten zoals Facebook, vraag ik me af: welke rol kan het privacyrecht daarbij spelen?}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } De kinderen van Apple-baas Steve Jobs mochten geen iPad gebruiken. 1 Maar Jobs was niet de enige. Veel techies in Silicon Valley zijn zich bewust van de verslavende effecten van IT – ze hebben de producten namelijk zelf ontwikkeld. En nu steeds meer spijtoptanten oproepen tot regulering van onlinediensten zoals Facebook, vraag ik me af: welke rol kan het privacyrecht daarbij spelen?
|
| Bodó, B., Helberger, N., Vreese, C.H. de
Political micro-targeting: a Manchurian candidate or just a dark horse? Internet Policy Review, 2017 (4), 2018. @article{Bod\'{o}2018,
title = {Political micro-targeting: a Manchurian candidate or just a dark horse?}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Helberger, N. and Vreese, C.H. de}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/political-micro-targeting-manchurian-candidate-or-just-dark-horse}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-01-19}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {2017}, number = {4}, abstract = {Political micro-targeting (PMT) has become a popular topic both in academia and in the public discussions after the surprise results of the 2016 US presidential election, the UK vote on leaving the European Union, and a number of general elections in Europe in 2017. Yet, we still know little about whether PMT is a tool with such destructive potential that it requires close societal control, or if it’s “just” a new phenomenon with currently unknown capacities, but which can ultimately be incorporated into our political processes. In this article we identify the points where we think we need to further develop our analytical capacities around PMT. We argue that we need to decouple research from the US context, and through more non-US and comparative research we need to develop a better understanding of the macro, meso, and micro level factors that affect the adoption and success of PMTs across different countries. One of the most under-researched macro-level factors is law. We argue that PMT research must develop a better understanding of law, especially in Europe, where the regulatory frameworks around platforms, personal data, political and commercial speech do shape the use and effectiveness of PMT. We point out that the incorporation of such new factors calls for the sophistication of research designs, which currently rely too much on qualitative methods, and use too little of the data that exists on PMT. And finally, we call for distancing PMT research from the hype surrounding the new PMT capabilities, and the moral panics that quickly develop around its uses.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Political micro-targeting (PMT) has become a popular topic both in academia and in the public discussions after the surprise results of the 2016 US presidential election, the UK vote on leaving the European Union, and a number of general elections in Europe in 2017. Yet, we still know little about whether PMT is a tool with such destructive potential that it requires close societal control, or if it’s “just” a new phenomenon with currently unknown capacities, but which can ultimately be incorporated into our political processes. In this article we identify the points where we think we need to further develop our analytical capacities around PMT. We argue that we need to decouple research from the US context, and through more non-US and comparative research we need to develop a better understanding of the macro, meso, and micro level factors that affect the adoption and success of PMTs across different countries. One of the most under-researched macro-level factors is law. We argue that PMT research must develop a better understanding of law, especially in Europe, where the regulatory frameworks around platforms, personal data, political and commercial speech do shape the use and effectiveness of PMT. We point out that the incorporation of such new factors calls for the sophistication of research designs, which currently rely too much on qualitative methods, and use too little of the data that exists on PMT. And finally, we call for distancing PMT research from the hype surrounding the new PMT capabilities, and the moral panics that quickly develop around its uses.
|
| Irion, K., Ledger, M., Svensson, S.
2017. @misc{Irion2017d,
title = {The independence and functioning of the regulatory authority for electronic media in Serbia, Study commissioned by the Council of Europe, Amsterdam/Brussels/Budapest/Belgrade, 2017.}, author = {Irion, K. and Ledger, M. and Svensson, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/rem-report-indiregmethodology-nov17-final-3/}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-10-16}, abstract = {This study carries out an independent assessment of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) of Serbia. The scope of the study is to apply the INDIREG methodology to the REM and provide contextual interpretation of the results with policy recommendations. This study has been commissioned by the Council of Europe, on the request of REM, in the framework of the Project “Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX)”. REM, seated in Belgrade, is caught and operates in a challenging context: media markets in Serbia are highly saturated and government grants are awarded to selective private media. There is low upfront compliance with programme and advertisements rules as well as an overall squeeze on quality content and the accountability function of the media. Lacking the optimal support of the parliament and being sidelined by the Ministry on Culture and Information can damage the effective functioning of the independent regulator. REM in this situation appears to retreat to overly formalistic (law-abiding) activities without necessarily being effective in regulating the Serbian electronic and audiovisual media. Many stakeholders from the media sector do not perceive of REM as an authority pointing to a lack of enforcement or the deflection of responsibility which has undermined its public credibility. The study concludes with a set of recommendation how to address these challenges.}, This study carries out an independent assessment of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) of Serbia. The scope of the study is to apply the INDIREG methodology to the REM and provide contextual interpretation of the results with policy recommendations. This study has been commissioned by the Council of Europe, on the request of REM, in the framework of the Project “Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX)”.
REM, seated in Belgrade, is caught and operates in a challenging context: media markets in Serbia are highly saturated and government grants are awarded to selective private media. There is low upfront compliance with programme and advertisements rules as well as an overall squeeze on quality content and the accountability function of the media. Lacking the optimal support of the parliament and being sidelined by the Ministry on Culture and Information can damage the effective functioning of the independent regulator. REM in this situation appears to retreat to overly formalistic (law-abiding) activities without necessarily being effective in regulating the Serbian electronic and audiovisual media. Many stakeholders from the media sector do not perceive of REM as an authority pointing to a lack of enforcement or the deflection of responsibility which has undermined its public credibility. The study concludes with a set of recommendation how to address these challenges. |
| Bosch, B.F.E., van Eijk, N.
Wifi-tracking in de winkel(straat): inbreuk op de privacy? Privacy & Informatie, (6), pp. 238-246, 2016. @article{Bosch2016,
title = {Wifi-tracking in de winkel(straat): inbreuk op de privacy?}, author = {Bosch, B.F.E. and van Eijk, N.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/PrivacyInformatie_2016_6.pdf}, year = {2016}, date = {2016-12-20}, journal = {Privacy & Informatie}, number = {6}, pages = {238-246}, abstract = {Tegenwoordig wordt de consument op steeds grotere schaal gevolgd via de wifi-signalen die smartphones uitzenden. Inzicht in hoe consumenten zich gedragen in een winkel levert commerci\"{e}le voordelen op voor de winkeliers, maar ook risico's voor de persoonlijke levenssfeer. Onder de Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens is gegevensverwerking via wifi-tracking toegestaan, mits wordt voldaan aan de strenge eisen die de wet stelt. Ter vergelijking wordt gekeken naar de regulering van wifi-tracking in de Verenigde Staten.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Tegenwoordig wordt de consument op steeds grotere schaal gevolgd via de wifi-signalen die smartphones uitzenden. Inzicht in hoe consumenten zich gedragen in een winkel levert commerciële voordelen op voor de winkeliers, maar ook risico's voor de persoonlijke levenssfeer. Onder de Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens is gegevensverwerking via wifi-tracking toegestaan, mits wordt voldaan aan de strenge eisen die de wet stelt. Ter vergelijking wordt gekeken naar de regulering van wifi-tracking in de Verenigde Staten.
|
| Helberger, N., Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., van der Noll, R.
Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity Info, (6), pp. 50-71., 2015. @article{,
title = {Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity}, author = {K. Kleinen-von K\"{o}nigsl\"{o}w and Rob van der Noll and N. Helberger}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1618.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-09-01}, journal = {Info}, number = {6}, pages = {50-71.}, note = { DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2015-0034 }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Irion, K.
2014. @misc{,
title = {Delegation to independent regulatory authorities in the media sector: A paradigm shift through the lens of regulatory theory}, author = {K. Irion}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Radu_2013.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-01-09}, booktitle = {The Independence of the Media and Its Regulatory Agencies. Shedding New Light on Formal and Actual }, pages = {15-54}, publisher = {Intellect}, address = {Bristol UK/ Chicago USA}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| Poort, J.
Van maatstaf naar maatwerk: een korte geschiedenis van economische regulering Tijdschrift voor Toezicht, (4), pp. 27-44, 2011. @article{,
title = {Van maatstaf naar maatwerk: een korte geschiedenis van economische regulering}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/03%20-%20TvT_Poort%20en%20Tieben.pdf}, year = {2011}, date = {2011-07-26}, journal = {Tijdschrift voor Toezicht}, number = {4}, pages = {27-44}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E.
The ever growing complexity of regulating the information society 2011. @misc{,
title = {The ever growing complexity of regulating the information society}, author = {E.J. Dommering}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Richard%20de%20Mulderbundel.pdf}, year = {2011}, date = {2011-07-05}, note = { In: Something bigger than yourself - Essays in honour of Richard de Mulder, P. Kleve en K. van Noortwijk (red.), Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam 2011, p.1-15. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| McGonagle, T.
Ireland: Milestones in Online Self-Regulation Computer und Recht International, (3), pp. 93-94, 2003. @article{,
title = {Ireland: Milestones in Online Self-Regulation}, author = {T. McGonagle}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/milestones.html}, year = {2003}, date = {2003-09-30}, journal = {Computer und Recht International}, number = {3}, pages = {93-94}, abstract = { Dit artikel beschrijft twee belangrijke ontwikkelingen op het gebied van zelfregulering van Internet in Ierland. Ten eerste de toepassing van de (allereerste) gedragscode (Code of Practice and Ethics) door de vereniging van Internet Service Providers in Ierland. Ten tweede beschrijft dit artikel het eerste belangrijke rapport van het Ierse online meldpunt voor kinderpornografie. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
Dit artikel beschrijft twee belangrijke ontwikkelingen op het gebied van zelfregulering van Internet in Ierland. Ten eerste de toepassing van de (allereerste) gedragscode (Code of Practice and Ethics) door de vereniging van Internet Service Providers in Ierland. Ten tweede beschrijft dit artikel het eerste belangrijke rapport van het Ierse online meldpunt voor kinderpornografie.
|