As most will be at least vaguely aware, Europe is expecting… the arrival into force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation – the GDPR – is now only 9 months away. This significant overhaul and enhancement of European data protection legislation is the brain-child of the EU Commission, Parliament, and Council. It has also most likely been sired by Germany, with many of the new rules regarding data subject rights to access, deletion, and portability heavily influenced by German legal thinking in this area. As Dr. Sebastian Golla has pointed out, the German Constitutional Court has stated in its decisions that the basic right to informational self-determination (Informationelle Selbstbestimmung) is the basis of German Data Protection Law. Continue reading We’re Expecting… 9 Months to Go to GDPR Overhaul of EU Data Protection Regime
Since my departure from the world of full-time academia, I have dedicated noticeably less time to writing new content for this site – however, not for want of subject matter. In the course of my recent work on AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and CFT (Countering the Financing of Terrorism) I have been deeply engaged with an old favourite topic of mine – digital payment methods. Specifically, both e-money and virtual currencies have cropped up on numerous occasions as innovative, though oft ill-understood, developments, which are raising a number of issues for AML/CFT and regulation more broadly. In this post, I will attempt to give a quick overview of virtual currencies from a prospective regulatory angle, focusing on the importance of clear and logical definitions (where possible), but leaving any more technical analysis of individual virtual currencies or underlying blockchain or distributed ledger technologies to another day. Continue reading The Virtual Currency Gold Rush and the Regulatory Wild West
I’ll start the year off with a bit of a general overview of some interesting developments in the area of technology law – specifically in Europe, but with wide-ranging effect – and there certainly have been some in both the closing months of 2015 and already in 2016. I’m hoping I’ll get around to writing about these issues in more depth in the coming months. There have been developments in the realm of employer surveillance of employees; the fallout from the disintegration of the Safe Harbour program continues to plague multinational data-driven companies; and these developments, along with others, such as the future of the so-called ‘Right to be Forgotten’, remains to be seen, with the final touches being put on large scale reform of data protection law in the EU. Continue reading The State of the (European) Union – Technology Law
A while back I drew attention to a rather excellent piece by Technollama entitled “Do Monkeys Dream of Electric Copyright?“, which, right when the saga of Naruto the aspiring simian photographer was just kicking off, analysed the various issues the human photographer, David Slater, would have when trying to claim copyright from a selfie which Naruto the crested black macaque monkey took with his camera back in 2011. The piece made some interesting analogies between Infopaq and computer-generated work, and how Slater could still perhaps claim copyright, despite the intervention of the monkey. Later, in 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit, Naruto v Slater, in the name of the monkey,claiming copyright for Naruto. After much speculation by academics and amused onlookers US District Judge William Orrick ruled this week, on Wednesday 6th January 2016, that the monkey sadly cannot own the intellectual property rights to the photos which were taken. So let us take a quick look back at the saga of Naruto the simian selfie-star, and the most recent developments. Continue reading Aspiring Simian Photographer Loses Copyright Case
I recently had the pleasure to be invited to give a talk at the wonderfully niche Gikii conference, organised by Andres Guadamuz (aka Technollama) and Lillian Edwards in Berlin this year. The event was hosted by the Alexander von Humboldt Centre for Internet and Society (HIIG), and covered topics such as monetising celebrity gut flora, monkeys as copyright holders, privacy in the Marvel universe and a number of questions about the urge to connect everything to the Internet of Things. Below you will find a brief overview of my paper, as well as the slides from the presentation. Continue reading Do Cyborgs Dream of Electric Lawsuits? – Gikii 2015
Things on the website have been rather quiet of late, though not for lack of interesting science and tech news. But rather I have been tied up with work projects for the last while, and am endeavoring to find some time to take a more in depth look at some recent developments. I do have some new reading material however for anyone with the dubious interest in human-animal genetic research; my piece entitled “Human-Animal Hybrids and Chimeras: What’s in a Name?”, was recently published by JAHR – the European Journal of Bioethics. You will find the abstract below: Continue reading Human-Animal Hybrids and Chimeras: What’s in a Name?
Certainly an interesting development for the “sharing-economy”, where strict regulatory structures for the likes of taxis and hotels are circumvented by legally questionable – albeit often welcome – business models introduced to the market
TechCrunch’s coverage of the RTBF Transparency Open Letter and Google’s response so far
You may remember that around this time last year I wrote a rather critical analysis of the newly established Right to be Forgotten which resulted from the Google Spain decision. You may also remember that Julia Powles and Rebekah Larsen collected a great deal of commentary (available here) from all sides of the debate on this topic, including, I am flattered to say, mine. Apart from anything else, this collection of commentary from all perspectives helped me re-analyse my own position on the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF), and perhaps move away from being staunchly against it, to being critical of how it was implemented. A year down the line, Julia Powles and Ellen Goodman managed to round up signatures from the lot of us, and composed an excellent Open Letter to Google, asking them for more transparency in how exactly they handle RTBF requests. Continue reading The War of the Forget-Me-Nots: Google and the Right to be Forgotten – One Year On
Good afternoon one and all. I know it’s been rather quiet on here the last month of so, but I’ve been tied up with a number of projects, in addition to the fact that the glorious Bavarian summer is playing havoc with my hibernian homeostatic balance. But I’ve decided to give you a quick update on the latest in a line (previous additions to your online privacy arsenal can be found here, here and here) of handy online tools for protection of your personal data – Privacy Badger. Privacy Badger is the excellently-named brainchild of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). If you’re not familiar with the EFF, I suggest you become so, as they are a particularly laudable digital rights non-profit who get up to such activities as; defending individuals and new technologies from misdirected legal threats, organising political action and mass mailings (on issues such as net neutrality), supporting new technologies which it believes preserve personal freedoms, whilst exposing technologies and companies who encroach on such freedoms, supporting fair and open copyright policies, keeping an eye on patent trolls, and much, much more. Continue reading Fire-Foxes and Privacy-Badgers
A very interesting, perhaps more practical take on the European data privacy debate
So far 2015 had been looking like a good year for proponents of net neutrality, with the somewhat unexpected victory in the US that came with the FCC passing new regulations, strictly enforcing net neutrality on a 3-2 vote. However, there was a bit of an upset last week in the European battle over net neutrality when some of the widely-praised and popular proposals for telecommunications reforms were back-tracked upon by the European Commission and the majority of the national representatives of the Member States in the European Council. As WIRED UK puts it;
Less than a year after the European Parliament voted to enshrine net neutrality in law, the principle has come under attack by the European Commission.
I admit it, from the title, and most likely from my excited writing style in the rest of this post, it will very much seem like I’ve been paid to write this by the bank. But the truth of the matter is much more mundane: I’m simply childishly excited by new toys, and my newest toy at the moment is the bank account I just opened with the new completely-online bank NUMBER26. At the moment, the service is only available to customers in Germany and Austria, but there are plans to roll out to other countries relatively soon.
A big victory for Net Neutrality proponents in the US. This decision has been a long time coming, but was far from a sure thing, with a number of serious fluctuations in FCC policy and proposals since the landmark rulings in Comcast Corp. v. FCC (2010) and Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014).
While it has come across my radar before, a colleague of mine at the Forschungsstelle für Verbraucherrecht reminded me today of a pretty handy, though perhaps under-utilised, tool for digital consumers, namely the website www.YourOnlineChoices.com “A Guide to Behavioural Advertising”. The front page offers a wide range of different countries and languages to choose from (including Romansch, though not Irish… even though the latter is an official language of the EU, but the former not), and this cheery message:
Welcome to a guide to online behavioural advertising and online privacy.
On this website you’ll find information about how behavioural advertising works, further information about cookies and the steps you can take to protect your privacy on the internet.
This website is written and funded by the internet advertising industry and supports a pan-European industry initiative to enhance transparency and control for online behavioural advertising.
And so it continues…
NIP(p)L(e), ostensibly standing for “New IP Lawyers” is a new network for those involved in the various fields of intellectual property law (and questionable acronyms), in particular for early career researchers and newly qualified lawyers. The initiative was co-founded by Mathilde Pavis and Hasan Kadir Yilmaztekin at the University of Exeter, with Joshua Wabwire as network representative at the University of Oxford, and since has been joined by members from a number of academic institutions around the UK. The mission of the network is to encourage and facilitate discussion of the issues surrounding IP Law both by lawyers and non-lawyers: Continue reading NIPL: New IP Lawyers
Happy New Year ladies, gentlemen, all in between, and none of the above! As always a new year brings new resolutions to be broken, new goals to be abandoned, and, of course, new hoaxes to be unmasked like a particularly tiresome episode of Scooby-Doo. Once again, and while 2015 is still knee-high to a grasshopper, our latest digital hoax and viral spread of legal misrepresentation comes to us from the realm of The Facebook. Much as with our last round of myth-busting, “Digital Panic! No, Facebook Is Not Spying on You Through Their Messenger App“, this time my, and no doubt your, Facebook news feed is a blaze with well-intentioned warnings about the depths to which Facebook has descended in its quest to steal Copyright, identities, souls and more than likely candy from babies. As much as this makes fascinating, if somewhat depressing reading, and as much as it pains me to take on the role of spoilsport in this micro-drama of the Erin Brockovich-esque user who first uncovered and took a stand against Facebook’s perceived changes in its Terms of Service, I must sadly inform you that this is once again nothing more than a not-particularly-elaborate-but-worryingly-effective hoax.