Publications
Top Keywords
- AI Act (11)
- Art. 10 EVRM (25)
- Art. 17 CDSM Directive (13)
- Artificial intelligence (79)
- Big data (12)
- Constitutional and administrative law (11)
- Consumer law (11)
- Content moderation (22)
- Copyright (203)
- Cybersecurity (10)
- Data protection (29)
- Data protection law (11)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (31)
- Digital Single Market (13)
- EU (19)
- EU law (25)
- Europe (13)
- Fake news (14)
- Freedom of expression (49)
- Fundamental rights (18)
- GDPR (22)
- Human rights (31)
- Intellectual property (30)
- Internet (24)
- Journalism (16)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Licensing (14)
- Media law (29)
- Online platforms (20)
- Patent law (20)
- Personal data (35)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (327)
- Regulation (12)
- Social media (11)
- Software (10)
- Surveillance (11)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (21)
- Trademark law (15)
- Transparency (19)
Algorithms Off-limits? If digital trade law restricts access to source code of software then accountability will suffer external link
Abstract
Free trade agreements are increasingly used to construct an additional layer of protection for source code of software. This comes in the shape of a new prohibition for governments to require access to, or transfer of, source code of software, subject to certain exceptions. A clause on software source code is also part and parcel of an ambitious set of new rules on trade-related aspects of electronic commerce currently negotiated by 86 members of the World Trade Organization. Our understanding to date of how such a commitment inside trade law impacts on governments right to regulate digital technologies and the policy space that is allowed under trade law is limited. Access to software source code is for example necessary to meet regulatory and judicial needs in order to ensure that digital technologies are in conformity with individuals’ human rights and societal values. This article will analyze the implications of such a source code clause for current and future digital policies by governments that aim to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability of computer and machine learning algorithms.
accountability, algorithms, application programming interfaces, auditability, Digital trade, fairness, frontpage, source code, Transparency
RIS
Bibtex
Defining the scope of AI ADM system risk assessment external link
Data intermediary external link
Abstract
Data intermediaries serve as a mediator between those who wish to make their data available, and those who seek to leverage that data. The intermediary works to govern the data in specific ways, and provides some degree of confidence regarding how the data will be used.
Links
frontpage, online intermediaries, Technologie en recht
RIS
Bibtex
Personal Information Management Systems external link
Abstract
Personal Information Management Systems (PIMS) seek to empower users by equipping them with mechanisms for mediating, monitoring and controlling how their data is accessed, used, or shared.
Links
frontpage, personal information management systems, pims, Technologie en recht, zelfregulering
RIS
Bibtex
Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Kamerlid / LinkedIn Ierland & LinkedIn Nederland) external link
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