1
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
2
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
3
Edwards L, editor. Law, policy, and the Internet. Oxford, UK: : Hart Publishing 2019.
4
Reed C. Making laws for cyberspace. 1st ed. Oxford, U.K.: : Oxford University Press 2012.
5
Nissenbaum HF. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, Calif: : Stanford Law Books 2010.
6
Cohen JE. Configuring the networked self: law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven [Conn.]: : Yale University Press
7
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace | Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
8
Johnson DR, Post D. Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 1996;48. doi:10.2307/1229390
9
Lawrence L. Code Version 2.0. http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf
10
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
11
Vranaki, A. A. Regulating Social Networking Sites: Facebook, Online Behavioral Advertising, Data Protection Laws and Powe. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/rutcomt43&id=1
12
Rowland D, et al., editors. Information Technology Law. Fifth edition. Abingdon: : Routledge 2017. doi:10.4324/9780203798522
13
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
14
Vranaki, A. A. Regulating Social Networking Sites: Facebook, Online Behavioral Advertising, Data Protection Laws and Powe. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/rutcomt43&id=1
15
Lawrence L. Code Version 2.0. http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf
16
Post DG. What Larry Doesn’t Get: Code, Law, and Liberty in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 2000;52. doi:10.2307/1229518
17
Reidenberg, J. R. Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Texas Law Review,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/tlr76&id=571
18
Mayer-Schonberger, V. Demystifying Lessig. Wisconsin Law Review
,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/wlr2008&id=725
19
Brown I, Marsden CT. Regulating code: good governance and better regulation in the information age. Cambridge, Mass: : The MIT Press
20
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
21
Edwards L, editor. Law, policy, and the Internet. Oxford, UK: : Hart Publishing 2019.
22
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
23
The EU-US Privacy Shield. https://iapp.org/media/pdf/resource_center/eu_us_privacy_shield_full_text.pdf.pdf
24
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
25
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
26
Lynskey O. The foundations of EU data protection law. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2015.
27
Poullet Y. Is the general data protection regulation the solution? Computer Law & Security Review 2018;34:773–8. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.021
28
Centre for Information Policy Leadership, ‘The Central Role of Organisational Accountability in Data Protection’. https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/uploads/5/7/1/0/57104281/cipl_accountability_paper_1_-_the_case_for_accountability_-_how_it_enables_effective_data_protection_and_trust_in_the_digital_society.pdf
29
Ferretti, Federico. Data protection and the legitimate interest of data controllers: Much ado about nothing or the winter of rights? Common Market Law Review;51:843–68.http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2014063
30
Powles, J. The Case That Won’t Be Forgotten. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/luclj47&id=1
31
Veale M, Binns R, Ausloos J. When data protection by design and data subject rights clash. International Data Privacy Law 2018;8:105–23. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipy002
32
Kuner C. Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post. German Law Journal 2017;18:881–918. doi:10.1017/S2071832200022197
33
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,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/jltp2016&id=1
34
Vranaki AAI. Cloud investigations by European data protection authorities: an empirical account. In: Rothchild JA, ed. Research handbook on electronic commercelaw. 2016. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781783479917/9781783479917.00045.xml
35
Koops B-J. The trouble with European data protection law. International Data Privacy Law 2014;4:250–61. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipu023
36
Raab C, Szekely I. Data protection authorities and information technology. Computer Law & Security Review 2017;33:421–33. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2017.05.002
37
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
38
UK ICO, ‘Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection’ (2017). https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2013559/big-data-ai-ml-and-data-protection.pdf
39
Polonetsky, J.; Tene, O. Privacy and Big Data: Making Ends Meet. Stanford Law Review Online,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/slro66&id=25
40
Lane J, Stodden V, Bender S, et al. Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement. Cambridge: : Cambridge University Press 2014.
41
Rubinstein IS. Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning? International Data Privacy Law 2013;3:74–87. doi:10.1093/idpl/ips036
42
UK ICO, ‘Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection’ (2017). https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2013559/big-data-ai-ml-and-data-protection.pdf
43
Nissenbaum HF. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, Calif: : Stanford Law Books 2010.
44
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,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/jipitec7&id=116
45
Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K. Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. London: : John Murray 2013.
46
Mayer-Schonberger, V.; Padova, Y. Regime Change: Enabling Big Data through Europe’s New Data Protection Regulation. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/cstlr17&id=1
47
Mantelero A. 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 2014;30:643–60. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2014.09.004
48
Cate FH, Mayer-Schonberger V. Notice and consent in a world of Big Data. International Data Privacy Law 2013;3:67–73. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipt005
49
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,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/colb2019&id=1
50
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
51
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
52
A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation : report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6ef4df8b-4cea-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1
53
Code of Practice on Disinformation. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/code-practice-disinformation
54
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,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/fedcom70&id=67
55
Chesney, R.; Citron, D. Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics. Foreign Affairs,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/fora98&id=1
56
Balkin, J. M. Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society. New York University Law Review,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/nylr79&id=15
57
Laidlaw EB. Regulating speech in cyberspace: gatekeepers, human rights and corporate responsibility. Cambridge, United Kingdom: : Cambridge University Press 2015.
58
Barendt EM. Freedom of speech. 2nd ed. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2009.
59
Lazer DMJ. The science of fake news. Science 2018;359:1094–6. doi:10.1126/science.aao2998
60
• House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report HC 1791 Eighth Report of Session 2017–19. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/1791.pdf
61
Goldberg, D. Responding to Fake News: Is There an Alternative to Law and Regulation. Southwestern Law Review,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/swulr47&id=1
62
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
63
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
64
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
65
Mills A. The law applicable to cross-border defamation on social media: whose law governs free speech in ‘Facebookistan’? Journal of Media Law 2015;7:1–35. doi:10.1080/17577632.2015.1055942
66
• E Laidlaw and H Young, Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals For Statutory Reform: Defamation Law in the Internet Age (2017). http://www.lco-cdo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DIA-Commissioned-Paper-Laidlaw-and-Young.pdf
67
Edwards L, editor. Law, policy, and the Internet. Oxford, UK: : Hart Publishing 2019.
68
Thompson, M. Beyond Gatekeeping: The Normative Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/vanep18&id=807
69
Mangan D. Regulating for responsibility: reputation and social media. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 2015;29:16–32. doi:10.1080/13600869.2015.1008960
70
Laidlaw EB. Regulating Speech in Cyberspace. Cambridge: : Cambridge University Press 2015. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107278721
71
Polański PP. Rethinking the notion of hosting in the aftermath of Delfi: Shifting from liability to responsibility? Computer Law & Security Review 2018;34:870–80. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.034
72
Mangan D, Gillies LE, editors. An unwholesome layer cake: intermediary liability in English defamation and data protection law. In: The Legal Challenges of Social Media. 2017. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785364501/9781785364501.00025.xml
73
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
74
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
75
Fafinski S. Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. Cullompton, Devon: : Willan Pub 2009.
76
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
77
Fafinski S. Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. Cullompton, Devon: : Willan Pub 2009.
78
Fafinski S. Computer Misuse: The Implications of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The Journal of Criminal Law 2008;72:53–66. doi:10.1350/jcla.2008.72.1.477
79
Gillespie AA. Cybercrime: Key Issues and Debates. 2nd ed. Milton: : Routledge 2019.
80
Clough J. Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge: : Cambridge University Press 2015. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139540803
81
Walden I. Computer crimes and digital investigations. 2nd edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2016.
82
Calderoni F. The European legal framework on cybercrime: striving for an effective implementation. Crime, Law and Social Change 2010;54:339–57. doi:10.1007/s10611-010-9261-6
83
Davies G. Court of Appeal High Court. The Journal of Criminal Law 2018;82:296–300. doi:10.1177/0022018318791670
84
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
85
Richards, Neil M.1 (AUTHOR). THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE. Harvard Law Review 2013;126:1934–65.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=87598612&site=ehost-live
86
Addressing the Harm of Total Surveillance: A Reply to Professor Neil Richards - Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/2013/06/addressing-the-harm-of-total-surveillance-a-reply-to-professor-neil-richards/
87
Solove, D. J. I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/sanlr44&id=1
88
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
89
Ni Loideain N. EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era. Media and Communication 2015;3. doi:10.17645/mac.v3i2.297
90
Kouvakas, I. The Watson Case: Another Missed Opportunity for Stricto Sensu Proportionality. Cambridge Law Review,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/cambrilv2&id=181
91
Cameron, Iain. A. Court of Justice Balancing data protection and law enforcement needs: Tele2 Sverige and Watson. Common Market Law Review;54:1467–95.http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2017119
92
Edwards L, editor. Law, policy, and the Internet. Oxford, UK: : Hart Publishing 2019.
93
Rowland D, Kohl U, Charlesworth A. Information technology law. Fifth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: : Routledge 2017.
94
Klerman, D. Forum Selling and Domain-Name Disputes. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/luclj48&id=1
95
Mac Sithigh D. 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 2010;18:274–300. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eaq007
96
Arnot, J. A. Navigating Cybersquatting Enforcement in the Expanding Internet. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/johnmars13&id=329
97
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy - ICANN. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en
98
Holstein-Childress, V. Lex Cyberus: The UDRP as a Gatekeeper to Judicial Resolution of Competing Rights to Domain Names. Penn State Law Review,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/dlr109&id=575
99
Geist, M. Fair.Com: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP. Brooklyn Journal of International Law,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/bjil27&id=915
100
Murray A. Information technology law: the law & society. 4th edition. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2019.
101
Lindsay, D. Website Blocking Injunctions to Prevent Copyright Infringements: Proportionality and Effectiveness. University of New South Wales Law Journal,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/swales40&id=1528
102
Lodder AR, Puck Polter. ISP blocking and filtering: on the shallow justification in case law regarding effectiveness of measures. European Journal of Law and Technology 2017;8.http://ejlt.org/article/view/517
103
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,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/amuilr32&id=1
104
Michael W, Rebecca S. ‘Searching for the Silver Bullet: How Website Blocking Injunctions are Changing Online IP Enforcement. Australian Intellectual Property Journal 2014;25.
105
Bernd Justin Jütte*. The beginning of a (happy?) relationship: copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. European Intellectual Property Review 2016;38:11–22.http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.bris.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fwestlawuk.thomsonreuters.co.uk%2FBrowse%2FHome%2FWestlawUK%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
106
Synodinou T-E. Intermediaries’ liability for online copyright infringement in the EU: Evolutions and confusions. Computer Law & Security Review 2015;31:57–67. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2014.11.010
107
Angelopoulos C. Sketching the outline of a ghost: the fair balance between copyright and fundamental rights in intermediary third party liability. info 2015;17:72–96. doi:10.1108/info-05-2015-0028
108
Bryson JJ, Diamantis ME, Grant TD. Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2017;25:273–91. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9214-9
109
Guihot, M.; Matthew, A. F.; Suzor, N. P. Nudging Robots: Innovative Solutions to Regulate Artificial Intelligence. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law,http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/vanep20&id=1
110
Reed C. How should we regulate artificial intelligence? Philosophical transactions Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 2018;376.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2017.0360
111
Barfield W, Pagallo U, editors. Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence. Cheltenham, UK: : Edward Elgar Publishing 2018. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781786439048/9781786439048.xml
112
• 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. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.html
113
Science and Technology Committee, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (HC 2016-145). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/14502.htm
114
Artificial Intelligence Committee, AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? (HL 2018 - 100). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldai/100/100.pdf
115
Ryan Calo. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. California Law Review 2015;103.https://www.jstor.org/stable/24758483?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
116
Balkin, Jack M. The Path of Robotics Law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2586570
