[1]
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace | Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence.
[2]
Angelopoulos, C. 2015. Sketching the outline of a ghost: the fair balance between copyright and fundamental rights in intermediary third party liability. info. 17, 6 (Sep. 2015), 72–96. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2015-0028.
[3]
Arnot, J. A. Navigating Cybersquatting Enforcement in the Expanding Internet. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law,.
[4]
Balkin, J. M. Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society. New York University Law Review,.
[5]
Balkin, Jack M. The Path of Robotics Law.
[6]
Barendt, E.M. 2009. Freedom of speech. Oxford University Press.
[7]
Barfield, W. and Pagallo, U. eds. 2018. Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[8]
Bernd Justin Jütte* 2016. The beginning of a (happy?) relationship: copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. European Intellectual Property Review. 38, (2016), 11–22.
[9]
Brown, I. and Marsden, C.T. Regulating code: good governance and better regulation in the information age. The MIT Press.
[10]
Bryson, J.J. et al. 2017. Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25, 3 (Sep. 2017), 273–291. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9214-9.
[11]
Calderoni, F. 2010. The European legal framework on cybercrime: striving for an effective implementation. Crime, Law and Social Change. 54, 5 (Dec. 2010), 339–357. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-010-9261-6.
[12]
Cameron, Iain A. Court of Justice Balancing data protection and law enforcement needs: Tele2 Sverige and Watson. Common Market Law Review. 54, 5, 1467–1495.
[13]
Cate, F.H. and Mayer-Schonberger, V. 2013. Notice and consent in a world of Big Data. International Data Privacy Law. 3, 2 (May 2013), 67–73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipt005.
[14]
Chesney, R.; Citron, D. Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics. Foreign Affairs,.
[15]
Clough, J. 2015. Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press.
[16]
Code of Practice on Disinformation: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/code-practice-disinformation.
[17]
Code Version 2.0: http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf.
[18]
Code Version 2.0: http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf.
[19]
Cohen, J.E. Configuring the networked self: law, code, and the play of everyday practice. Yale University Press.
[20]
Davies, G. 2018. Court of Appeal High Court. The Journal of Criminal Law. 82, 4 (Aug. 2018), 296–300. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018318791670.
[21]
Edwards, L. ed. 2019. Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing.
[22]
Edwards, L. ed. 2019. Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing.
[23]
Edwards, L. ed. 2019. Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing.
[24]
Edwards, L. ed. 2019. Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing.
[25]
Fafinski, S. 2009. Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. Willan Pub.
[26]
Fafinski, S. 2009. Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. Willan Pub.
[27]
Fafinski, S. 2008. Computer Misuse: The Implications of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The Journal of Criminal Law. 72, 1 (Feb. 2008), 53–66. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2008.72.1.477.
[28]
Ferretti, Federico Data protection and the legitimate interest of data controllers: Much ado about nothing or the winter of rights? Common Market Law Review. 51, 3, 843–868.
[29]
Geiger, C.; Izyumenko, E. The Role of Human Rights in Copyright Enforcement Online: Elaborating a Legal Framework for Website Blocking. American University International Law Review,.
[30]
Geist, M. Fair.Com: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP. Brooklyn Journal of International Law,.
[31]
Gillespie, A.A. 2019. Cybercrime: Key Issues and Debates. Routledge.
[32]
Goldberg, D. Responding to Fake News: Is There an Alternative to Law and Regulation. Southwestern Law Review,.
[33]
Guihot, M.; Matthew, A. F.; Suzor, N. P. Nudging Robots: Innovative Solutions to Regulate Artificial Intelligence. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law,.
[34]
Holstein-Childress, V. Lex Cyberus: The UDRP as a Gatekeeper to Judicial Resolution of Competing Rights to Domain Names. Penn State Law Review,.
[35]
Johnson, D.R. and Post, D. 1996. Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review. 48, 5 (May 1996). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1229390.
[36]
Klerman, D. Forum Selling and Domain-Name Disputes. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,.
[37]
Koops, B.-J. 2014. The trouble with European data protection law. International Data Privacy Law. 4, 4 (Nov. 2014), 250–261. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipu023.
[38]
Kouvakas, I. The Watson Case: Another Missed Opportunity for Stricto Sensu Proportionality. Cambridge Law Review,.
[39]
Kuner, C. 2017. Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post. German Law Journal. 18, 4 (Jul. 2017), 881–918. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200022197.
[40]
Laidlaw, E.B. 2015. Regulating Speech in Cyberspace. Cambridge University Press.
[41]
Laidlaw, E.B. 2015. Regulating speech in cyberspace: gatekeepers, human rights and corporate responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
[42]
Lane, J. et al. 2014. Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement. Cambridge University Press.
[43]
Lazer, D.M.J. 2018. The science of fake news. Science. 359, 6380 (Mar. 2018), 1094–1096. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998.
[44]
Lindsay, D. Website Blocking Injunctions to Prevent Copyright Infringements: Proportionality and Effectiveness. University of New South Wales Law Journal,.
[45]
Lodder, A.R. and Puck Polter 2017. ISP blocking and filtering: on the shallow justification in case law regarding effectiveness of measures. European Journal of Law and Technology. 8, 2 (Nov. 2017).
[46]
Lynskey, O. 2015. The foundations of EU data protection law. Oxford University Press.
[47]
Mac Sithigh, D. 2010. More than words: the introduction of internationalised domain names and the reform of generic top-level domains at ICANN. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 18, 3 (Sep. 2010), 274–300. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaq007.
[48]
Mangan, D. 2015. Regulating for responsibility: reputation and social media. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 29, 1 (Jan. 2015), 16–32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2015.1008960.
[49]
Mangan, D. and Gillies, L.E. eds. 2017. An unwholesome layer cake: intermediary liability in English defamation and data protection law. The Legal Challenges of Social Media.
[50]
Mantelero, A. 2014. The future of consumer data protection in the E.U. Re-thinking the "notice and consent” paradigm in the new era of predictive analytics. Computer Law & Security Review. 30, 6 (Dec. 2014), 643–660. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.09.004.
[51]
Mayer-Schonberger, V. Demystifying Lessig. Wisconsin Law Review ,.
[52]
Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Cukier, K. 2013. Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. John Murray.
[53]
Mayer-Schonberger, V.; Padova, Y. Regime Change: Enabling Big Data through Europe’s New Data Protection Regulation. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review,.
[54]
Michael, W. and Rebecca, S. 2014. ‘Searching for the Silver Bullet: How Website Blocking Injunctions are Changing Online IP Enforcement. Australian Intellectual Property Journal. 25, (2014).
[55]
Mills, A. 2015. The law applicable to cross-border defamation on social media: whose law governs free speech in ‘Facebookistan’? Journal of Media Law. 7, 1 (Jan. 2015), 1–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2015.1055942.
[56]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[57]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[58]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[59]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[60]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[61]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[62]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[63]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[64]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[65]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[66]
Murray, A. 2019. Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press.
[67]
Napoli, P. M. What If More Speech Is No Longer the Solution: First Amendment Theory Meets Fake News and the Filter Bubble. Federal Communications Law Journal,.
[68]
Ni Loideain, N. 2015. EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era. Media and Communication. 3, 2 (Sep. 2015). DOI:https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v3i2.297.
[69]
Nissenbaum, H.F. 2010. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford Law Books.
[70]
Nissenbaum, H.F. 2010. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford Law Books.
[71]
Polański, P.P. 2018. Rethinking the notion of hosting in the aftermath of Delfi: Shifting from liability to responsibility? Computer Law & Security Review. 34, 4 (Aug. 2018), 870–880. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.034.
[72]
Polonetsky, J.; Tene, O. Privacy and Big Data: Making Ends Meet. Stanford Law Review Online,.
[73]
Post, D.G. 2000. What Larry Doesn’t Get: Code, Law, and Liberty in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review. 52, 5 (May 2000). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1229518.
[74]
Poullet, Y. 2018. Is the general data protection regulation the solution? Computer Law & Security Review. 34, 4 (Aug. 2018), 773–778. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.021.
[75]
Powles, J. The Case That Won’t Be Forgotten. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,.
[76]
Raab, C. and Szekely, I. 2017. Data protection authorities and information technology. Computer Law & Security Review. 33, 4 (Aug. 2017), 421–433. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.05.002.
[77]
Reed, C. 2018. How should we regulate artificial intelligence? Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences. 376, 2128 (Sep. 2018).
[78]
Reed, C. 2012. Making laws for cyberspace. Oxford University Press.
[79]
Reidenberg, J. R. Lex Informatica:  The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Texas Law Review,.
[80]
Richards, Neil M.1 (AUTHOR) 2013. THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE. Harvard Law Review. 126, Issue 7 (2013), 1934–1965.
[81]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[82]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[83]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[84]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[85]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[86]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[87]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[88]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[89]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[90]
Rowland, D. et al. 2017. Information technology law. Routledge.
[91]
Rowland, D. and et al. eds. 2017. Information Technology Law. Routledge.
[92]
Rubinstein, I.S. 2013. Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning? International Data Privacy Law. 3, 2 (May 2013), 74–87. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ips036.
[93]
Ryan Calo 2015. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. California Law Review. 103, 3 (2015).
[94]
Solove, D. J. I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review,.
[95]
Synodinou, T.-E. 2015. Intermediaries’ liability for online copyright infringement in the EU: Evolutions and confusions. Computer Law & Security Review. 31, 1 (Feb. 2015), 57–67. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.11.010.
[96]
Thompson, M. Beyond Gatekeeping: The Normative Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law,.
[97]
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy - ICANN: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en.
[98]
van der Sloot, B.; van Schendel, S. Ten Questions for Future Regulation of Big Data: A Comparative and Empirical Legal Study. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law,.
[99]
Veale, M. et al. 2018. When data protection by design and data subject rights clash. International Data Privacy Law. 8, 2 (May 2018), 105–123. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipy002.
[100]
Vranaki, A. A. Learning Lessons from Cloud Investigations in Europe: Bargaining Enforcement and Multiple Centers of Regulation in Data Protection. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy,.
[101]
Vranaki, A. A. Regulating Social Networking Sites: Facebook, Online Behavioral Advertising, Data Protection Laws and Powe. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal,.
[102]
Vranaki, A. A. Regulating Social Networking Sites: Facebook, Online Behavioral Advertising, Data Protection Laws and Powe. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal,.
[103]
Vranaki, A.A.I. 2016. Cloud investigations by European data protection authorities: an empirical account. Research handbook on electronic commercelaw. J.A. Rothchild, ed.
[104]
Wachter, S.; Mittelstadt, B. A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI. Columbia Business Law Review,.
[105]
Walden, I. 2016. Computer crimes and digital investigations. Oxford University Press.
[106]
A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation : report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation.
[107]
Addressing the Harm of Total Surveillance: A Reply to Professor Neil Richards - Harvard Law Review.
[108]
Artificial Intelligence Committee, AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? (HL 2018 - 100).
[109]
Centre for Information Policy Leadership, ‘The Central Role of Organisational Accountability in Data Protection’.
[110]
• E Laidlaw and H Young, Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals For Statutory Reform: Defamation Law in the Internet Age (2017).
[111]
• European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs, ‘Report with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics’ (2015/2103(INL)) A8-0005/27 January 2017.
[112]
• House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report HC 1791 Eighth Report of Session 2017–19.
[113]
Science and Technology Committee, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (HC 2016-145).
[114]
The EU-US Privacy Shield.
[115]
UK ICO, ‘Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection’ (2017).
[116]
UK ICO, ‘Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection’ (2017).