Publicaties
Top Keywords
- Annotaties (57)
- Art. 10 EVRM (26)
- Auteursrecht (518)
- Bescherming van communicatie (20)
- Consumentenrecht (22)
- Content moderation (22)
- Databankenrecht (25)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (31)
- EU (19)
- EU law (25)
- Freedom of expression (50)
- Fundamental rights (19)
- GDPR (22)
- Grondrechten (421)
- Industriële eigendom (38)
- Informatierecht (37)
- Intellectual property (31)
- Intellectuele eigendom (425)
- Internet (24)
- Journalistiek (33)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Kronieken (18)
- Media law (30)
- Mediarecht (378)
- Mensenrechten (18)
- Merkenrecht (21)
- Naburige rechten (20)
- Omroeprecht (28)
- Online platforms (20)
- Overheidsinformatie (53)
- Personal data (35)
- Persrecht (41)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (327)
- Regulering (20)
- Technologie en recht (75)
- Telecommunicatierecht (127)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (21)
- Transparency (19)
- Vrijheid van meningsuiting (198)
A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation external link
Abstract
This article provides an overview and critical examination of the rules for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller under the General Data Protection Regulation. Using Google Assistant – an artificial intelligence-driven virtual assistant – as a case study, we argue that these rules are overreaching and difficult to apply in the present-day information society and Internet of Things environments. First, as a consequence of recent developments in case law and supervisory guidance, these rules lead to a complex and ambiguous test to determine (joint) control. Second, due to advances in technological applications and business models, it is increasingly challenging to apply such rules to contemporary processing operations. In particular, as illustrated by the Google Assistant, individuals will likely be qualified as joint controllers, together with Google and also third-party developers, for at least the collection and possible transmission of other individuals’ personal data via the virtual assistant. Third, we identify follow-on issues relating to the apportionment of responsibilities between joint controllers and the effective and complete protection of data subjects. We conclude by questioning whether the framework for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller is future-proof and normatively desirable.
frontpage, GDPR, Privacy, Recht op gegevensbescherming
RIS
Bibtex
Inbreng Rondetafelgesprek over de Wet kansspelen op afstand external link
Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II external link
Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I external link
algoritmes, Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Artificial intelligence, Auteursrecht, Europees recht, frontpage
RIS
Bibtex
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 12 december 2021 (SENA/Organisatoren Dance Events) external link
Abstract
De zaak draait om de hoogte van de billijke vergoeding voor openbaarmaking van commerciële fonogrammen tijdens dance-evenementen. De Hoge Raad bekrachtigt het arrest van het gerechtshof Den Haag, dat tot uitgangspunt had genomen dat tussen de ‘ticketprijs’ en de ‘prijs per bezoeker’ geen recht evenredig verband bestaat.
Annotaties, Auteursrecht, billijke vergoeding, frontpage, muziek, openbaarmaking
RIS
Bibtex
De playlists van Spotify: Hoe ver reikt het nabuurrechtelijke vergoedingsrecht met betrekking tot audiostreamingdiensten? external link
Abstract
Op grond van art. 7 lid 1 WNR vallen onder het vergoedingsrecht voor ‘secundair gebruik’ alle mogelijke vormen van openbaarmaking van commercieel uitgebrachte fonogrammen, doch niet het online beschikbaar stellen. Algemeen wordt aangenomen dat het vergoedingsrecht niet geldt voor het streamen via Spotify en dergelijke diensten. Maar geldt dat ook voor de door Spotify aangeboden playlists en vergelijkbare omroepachtige diensten? In dit artikel wordt een poging gedaan criteria te formuleren aan de hand waarvan het ‘beschikbaar stellen’ van andere vormen van openbaarmaking kan worden onderscheiden.
Auteursrecht, frontpage, muziek, Naburige rechten, streamingdiensten
RIS
Bibtex
Naar een algemeen transparantiebeginsel? : Bespreking van het preadvies van A.W.G.J. Buijze voor de VAR 2022 external link
The Meaning of “Additional” in the Poland ruling of the Court of Justice: Double Safeguards – Ex Ante Flagging and Ex Post Complaint Systems – are Indispensable external link
Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector external link
Abstract
Emerging technologies permeate and potentially disrupt a wide spectrum of our social, economic, and political relations. Various state institutions, including education, law enforcement, and healthcare, increasingly rely on technical components, such as automated decision-making systems, e-government systems, and other digital tools to provide cheap, efficient public services, and supposedly fair, transparent, disinterested, and accountable public administration. The increased interest in various blockchain-based solutions from central bank digital currencies, via tokenized educational credentials, and distributed ledger-based land registries to self-sovereign identities is the latest, still mostly unwritten chapter in a long history of standardized, objectified, automated, technocratic, and technologized public administration. The rapid, (often) unplanned, and uncontrolled technologization of public services (as happened in the hasty adoption of distance-learning and teleconferencing systems during Corona Virus Disease (COVID) lockdowns) raises complex questions about the use of novel technological components, which may or may not be ultimately adequate for the task for which they are used. The question whether we can trust the technical infrastructures the public sector uses when providing public services is a central concern in an age where trust in government is declining: If the government’s artificial intelligence system that detects welfare fraud fails, the public’s confidence in the government is ultimately hit. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of how the use of potentially untrustworthy (private) technological systems including blockchain-based systems in the public sector may affect trust in government. We then propose several policy options to protect the trust in government even if some of their technological components prove fundamentally untrustworthy.
blockchain, frontpage, Technologie en recht, trust