ISPs & Rowdy Web Sites Before the Law: Should We Change Today’s Safe Harbour Clauses?
- 178 Downloads
The paper examines today’s debate on the new responsibilities of Internet service providers (ISPs) in connection with legal problems concerning jurisdiction, data processing, people’s privacy and education. The focus is foremost on the default rules and safe harbour clauses for ISPs liability, set up by the US and European legal systems. This framework is deepened in light of the different functions of the services provided on the Internet so as to highlight multiple levels of control over information and, correspondingly, different types of liability. The new responsibilities of ISPs concern the original “end-to-end” architecture of the medium and policies on design rather than responsibility for user content and individual messages.
KeywordsCopyright Data protection Internet service providers Jurisdiction Privacy by design Responsibility Safe harbour clauses Self-enforcement technologies
- Anderson, C. (2010). The Web is dead: Who’s to blame—Us. Wired, September, pp. 123–127, 164.Google Scholar
- Bauböck, R. (1994). Transnational citizenship: Membership and rights in international migration. London: Elgar.Google Scholar
- Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the web. San Francisco: Harper.Google Scholar
- Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M., & Francesconi, E. (Eds.). (2009). Law, ontologies and the semantic web. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
- Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Sartor, G., & Ajani, G. (Eds.). (2010). AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems. Complex systems, the semantic web, ontologies, argumentation, and dialogue. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Cerf, V. (2007). User-generated content is top threat to media and entertainment industry. Accenture, April 16.Google Scholar
- CSISAC (2009). Comments to OECD on information intermediaries. The Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council, June 30th, 2009. Retrieved 3rd November 2010 from http://csisac.org/docs/OECD_Intermediary_071409_final.pdf.
- Flanagan, M., Howe, D. C., & Nissenbaum, M. (2008). Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 322–353). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan (1982 edition). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Hustinx, P. (2007), Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up of the Work Programme for better implementation of the Data Protection Directive. Official Journal of the European Union, 2007/C 2551/01, July 25th 2007.Google Scholar
- Jobs, S. (2007). Thoughts on music. Retrieved 20th April 2009 from http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/.
- Kant, I. (1795). Kant’s principles of politics, including his essay on perpetual peace. A contribution to political science (translated by W. Hastie). Edinburgh, Clark, 1891.Google Scholar
- Kuner, Ch. (2003). European data privacy law and online business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.Google Scholar
- Norman, D. A. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Pagallo, U. (2008). La tutela della privacy negli USA e in Europa. Modelli Giuridici a Confronto. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
- Pagallo, U. (2009). Privacy e design. Informatica e Diritto, 1, 123–134.Google Scholar
- Pagallo, U. (2010). As law goes by: Topology, ontology, evolution. In P. Casanovas et al. (Eds.), AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems (pp. 12–26). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Post, D. G. (2009). In search of Jefferson’s moose: Notes on the state of cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sartor, G. and Viola de Azevedo Cunha, M. (2010). The Italian Google-case: Privacy, freedom of speech and responsibility of providers for user-generated contents. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, forthcoming. Retrieved 19th November 2010 at SSRN from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1604411.
- Waldron, J. (2010). Dignity and defamation: The visibility of hate. Harvard Law Review, 123(7), 1596–1657.Google Scholar
- Wolff, M. (2010). The web is dead: Who’s to blame—Them. Wired, September, pp. 123–127, 166.Google Scholar
- WP 29 (2009a). EU Working Party art. 29 D-95/46/EC. Online social networking, 01189/09/EN–WP 163, June 12th, 2009.Google Scholar
- WP 29 (2009b). EU Working Party art. 29 D-95/46/EC. The future of privacy. 02356/09/EN–WP 168, December 1st 2009.Google Scholar
- WP 29 (2010). EU Working Party art. 29 D-95/46/EC. The concepts of “controller” and “processor.” 02264/10/EN–WP 169, February 16th 2010.Google Scholar
- Yeung, K. (2007). Towards an understanding of regulation by design. In R. Brownsword & K. Yeung (Eds.), Regulating technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes (pp. 79–108). London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- Zittrain, J. (2007). Perfect enforcement on tomorrow’s Internet. In R. Brownsword & K. Yeung (Eds.), Regulating technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes (pp. 125–156). London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the Internet and how to stop it. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar