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 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
8.
Johnson DR, Post D. Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review. 1996 May;48(5).
9.
Lawrence L. Code Version 2.0 [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/rutcomt43&id=1
12.
Rowland D, et al., editors. Information Technology Law [Internet]. Fifth edition. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/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, [Internet]. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/rutcomt43&id=1
15.
Lawrence L. Code Version 2.0 [Internet]. Available from: 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 May;52(5).
17.
Reidenberg, J. R. Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Texas Law Review, [Internet]. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/tlr76&id=571
18.
Mayer-Schonberger, V. Demystifying Lessig. Wisconsin Law Review
, [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Available from: 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 Aug;34(4):773–778.
28.
Centre for Information Policy Leadership, ‘The Central Role of Organisational Accountability in Data Protection’ [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Kluwer Law International; 51(3):843–868. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 May 1;8(2):105–123.
32.
Kuner C. Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post. German Law Journal. 2017 Jul 1;18(4):881–918.
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, [Internet]. Available from: 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, editor. Research handbook on electronic commercelaw [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781783479917/9781783479917.00045.xml
35.
Koops BJ. The trouble with European data protection law. International Data Privacy Law. 2014 Nov 1;4(4):250–261.
36.
Raab C, Szekely I. Data protection authorities and information technology. Computer Law & Security Review. 2017 Aug;33(4):421–433.
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) [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/slro66&id=25
40.
Lane J, Stodden V, Bender S, Nissenbaum HF. 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 May 1;3(2):74–87.
42.
UK ICO, ‘Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection’ (2017) [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 Dec;30(6):643–660.
48.
Cate FH, Mayer-Schonberger V. Notice and consent in a world of Big Data. International Data Privacy Law. 2013 May 1;3(2):67–73.
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, [Internet]. Available from: 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. Available from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6ef4df8b-4cea-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1
53.
Code of Practice on Disinformation [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 Mar 9;359(6380):1094–1096.
60.
• House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report HC 1791 Eighth Report of Session 2017–19 [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 Jan 2;7(1):1–35.
66.
• E Laidlaw and H Young, Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals For Statutory Reform: Defamation Law in the Internet Age (2017) [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 Jan 2;29(1):16–32.
70.
Laidlaw EB. Regulating Speech in Cyberspace [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. Available from: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781107278721
71.
Polański PP. Rethinking the notion of hosting in the aftermath of Delfi: Shifting from liability to responsibility? Computer Law & Security Review. 2018 Aug;34(4):870–880.
72.
Mangan D, Gillies LE, editors. An unwholesome layer cake: intermediary liability in English defamation and data protection law. The Legal Challenges of Social Media [Internet]. 2017. Available from: 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 Feb;72(1):53–66.
79.
Gillespie AA. Cybercrime: Key Issues and Debates. 2nd ed. Milton: Routledge; 2019.
80.
Clough J. Principles of Cybercrime [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. Available from: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/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 Dec;54(5):339–357.
83.
Davies G. Court of Appeal High Court. The Journal of Criminal Law. 2018 Aug;82(4):296–300.
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 [Internet]. 2013;126(Issue 7):1934–1965. Available from: 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. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 Sep 30;3(2).
90.
Kouvakas, I. The Watson Case: Another Missed Opportunity for Stricto Sensu Proportionality. Cambridge Law Review, [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Kluwer Law International; 54(5):1467–1495. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 Sep 1;18(3):274–300.
96.
Arnot, J. A. Navigating Cybersquatting Enforcement in the Expanding Internet. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, [Internet]. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/johnmars13&id=329
97.
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy - ICANN [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. 2017 Nov 23;8(2). Available from: 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, [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. 2016;38:11–22. Available from: 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 TE. Intermediaries’ liability for online copyright infringement in the EU: Evolutions and confusions. Computer Law & Security Review. 2015 Feb;31(1):57–67.
107.
Angelopoulos C. Sketching the outline of a ghost: the fair balance between copyright and fundamental rights in intermediary third party liability. info. 2015 Sep 14;17(6):72–96.
108.
Bryson JJ, Diamantis ME, Grant TD. Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2017 Sep;25(3):273–291.
109.
Guihot, M.; Matthew, A. F.; Suzor, N. P. Nudging Robots: Innovative Solutions to Regulate Artificial Intelligence. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. 2018 Sep 13;376(2128). Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2017.0360
111.
Barfield W, Pagallo U, editors. Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence [Internet]. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2018. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Available from: 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) [Internet]. Available from: 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) [Internet]. Available from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldai/100/100.pdf
115.
Ryan Calo. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. California Law Review [Internet]. California Law Review, Inc.; 2015;103(3). Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24758483?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
116.
Balkin, Jack M. The Path of Robotics Law. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2586570
