Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 419–436 | Cite as

ISPs & Rowdy Web Sites Before the Law: Should We Change Today’s Safe Harbour Clauses?

Special Issue


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.


Copyright Data protection Internet service providers Jurisdiction Privacy by design Responsibility Safe harbour clauses Self-enforcement technologies 


  1. Anderson, C. (2010). The Web is dead: Who’s to blame—Us. Wired, September, pp. 123–127, 164.Google Scholar
  2. Bauböck, R. (1994). Transnational citizenship: Membership and rights in international migration. London: Elgar.Google Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the web. San Francisco: Harper.Google Scholar
  4. Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M., & Francesconi, E. (Eds.). (2009). Law, ontologies and the semantic web. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Cavoukian, A. (2010). Privacy by design: The definitive workshop. Identity in the Information Society, 3(2), 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerf, V. (2007). User-generated content is top threat to media and entertainment industry. Accenture, April 16.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2010). Responsibility of and trust in ISPs. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23(3–4), 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CSISAC (2009). Comments to OECD on information intermediaries. The Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council, June 30th, 2009. Retrieved 3rd November 2010 from
  10. 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
  11. Floridi, L. (2003). On the intrinsic value of information objects and the infosphere. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Floridi, L. (2006). Information technology and the tragedy of the good will. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glorioso, A., Pagallo, U., & Ruffo, G. (2010). The social impact of P2P systems. In X. Shen, H. Yu, J. Buford, & M. Akon (Eds.), Handbook of peer-to-peer networking (pp. 47–70). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grodzinsky, F. S., & Tavani, H. T. (2005). P2P networks and the Verizon v. RIAA case: Implications for personal privacy and intellectual property. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. A., & Wolf, M. J. (2008). The ethics of designing artificial agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan (1982 edition). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Jobs, S. (2007). Thoughts on music. Retrieved 20th April 2009 from
  19. Jutla, D. N. (2010). Layering privacy on operating systems, social networks, and other platforms by design. Identity in the Information Society, 3(2), 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Kuner, Ch. (2003). European data privacy law and online business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Lockton, D., Harrison, D. J., & Stanton, N. A. (2010). The design with intent method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.Google Scholar
  26. Norman, D. A. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Pagallo, U. (2008). La tutela della privacy negli USA e in Europa. Modelli Giuridici a Confronto. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  28. Pagallo, U. (2009). Privacy e design. Informatica e Diritto, 1, 123–134.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Pagallo, U., & Durante, M. (2009). Three roads to P2P systems and their impact on business practices and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Post, D. G. (2009). In search of Jefferson’s moose: Notes on the state of cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Tavani, H. T. (2007). Philosophical theories of privacy: Implications for an adequate online privacy policy. Metaphilosophy, 38(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Volkman, R. (2003). Privacy as life, liberty, property. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(4), 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. von Ahn, L., Maurer, B., McMillen, C., Abraham, D., & Blum, M. (2008). reCAPTCHA: Human-based character recognition via web security measures. Science, 321(5895), 1465–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Waldron, J. (2010). Dignity and defamation: The visibility of hate. Harvard Law Review, 123(7), 1596–1657.Google Scholar
  37. Wolff, M. (2010). The web is dead: Who’s to blame—Them. Wired, September, pp. 123–127, 166.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the Internet and how to stop it. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations