1.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
2.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
3.
Law, policy, and the Internet. (Hart Publishing, 2019).
4.
Reed, C. Making laws for cyberspace. (Oxford University Press, 2012).
5.
Nissenbaum, H. F. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. (Stanford Law Books, 2010).
6.
Cohen, J. E. Configuring the networked self: law, code, and the play of everyday practice. (Yale University Press).
7.
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace | Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence.
8.
Johnson, D. R. & Post, D. Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 48, (1996).
9.
Lawrence, L. Code Version 2.0. http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf.
10.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (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,.
12.
Information Technology Law. (Routledge, 2017). doi:10.4324/9780203798522.
13.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (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,.
15.
Lawrence, L. Code Version 2.0. http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf.
16.
Post, D. G. What Larry Doesn’t Get: Code, Law, and Liberty in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 52, (2000).
17.
Reidenberg, J. R. Lex Informatica:  The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Texas Law Review,.
18.
Mayer-Schonberger, V. Demystifying Lessig. Wisconsin Law Review ,.
19.
Brown, I. & Marsden, C. T. Regulating code: good governance and better regulation in the information age. (The MIT Press).
20.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
21.
Law, policy, and the Internet. (Hart Publishing, 2019).
22.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
23.
The EU-US Privacy Shield.
24.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
25.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
26.
Lynskey, O. The foundations of EU data protection law. (Oxford University Press, 2015).
27.
Poullet, Y. Is the general data protection regulation the solution? Computer Law & Security Review 34, 773–778 (2018).
28.
Centre for Information Policy Leadership, ‘The Central Role of Organisational Accountability in Data Protection’.
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, 843–868.
30.
Powles, J. The Case That Won’t Be Forgotten. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,.
31.
Veale, M., Binns, R. & Ausloos, J. When data protection by design and data subject rights clash. International Data Privacy Law 8, 105–123 (2018).
32.
Kuner, C. Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post. German Law Journal 18, 881–918 (2017).
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,.
34.
Vranaki, A. A. I. Cloud investigations by European data protection authorities: an empirical account. in Research handbook on electronic commercelaw (ed. Rothchild, J. A.) (2016).
35.
Koops, B.-J. The trouble with European data protection law. International Data Privacy Law 4, 250–261 (2014).
36.
Raab, C. & Szekely, I. Data protection authorities and information technology. Computer Law & Security Review 33, 421–433 (2017).
37.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
38.
UK ICO, ‘Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection’ (2017).
39.
Polonetsky, J.; Tene, O. Privacy and Big Data: Making Ends Meet. Stanford Law Review Online,.
40.
Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S. & Nissenbaum, H. F. Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
41.
Rubinstein, I. S. Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning? International Data Privacy Law 3, 74–87 (2013).
42.
UK ICO, ‘Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection’ (2017).
43.
Nissenbaum, H. F. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. (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,.
45.
Mayer-Schönberger, V. & Cukier, K. Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. (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,.
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 30, 643–660 (2014).
48.
Cate, F. H. & Mayer-Schonberger, V. Notice and consent in a world of Big Data. International Data Privacy Law 3, 67–73 (2013).
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,.
50.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
51.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
52.
A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation : report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation.
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,.
55.
Chesney, R.; Citron, D. Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics. Foreign Affairs,.
56.
Balkin, J. M. Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society. New York University Law Review,.
57.
Laidlaw, E. B. Regulating speech in cyberspace: gatekeepers, human rights and corporate responsibility. (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
58.
Barendt, E. M. Freedom of speech. (Oxford University Press, 2009).
59.
Lazer, D. M. J. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).
60.
• House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report HC 1791 Eighth Report of Session 2017–19.
61.
Goldberg, D. Responding to Fake News: Is There an Alternative to Law and Regulation. Southwestern Law Review,.
62.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
63.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
64.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (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 7, 1–35 (2015).
66.
• E Laidlaw and H Young, Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals For Statutory Reform: Defamation Law in the Internet Age (2017).
67.
Law, policy, and the Internet. (Hart Publishing, 2019).
68.
Thompson, M. Beyond Gatekeeping: The Normative Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law,.
69.
Mangan, D. Regulating for responsibility: reputation and social media. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 29, 16–32 (2015).
70.
Laidlaw, E. B. Regulating Speech in Cyberspace. (Cambridge University Press, 2015). doi:10.1017/CBO9781107278721.
71.
Polański, P. P. Rethinking the notion of hosting in the aftermath of Delfi: Shifting from liability to responsibility? Computer Law & Security Review 34, 870–880 (2018).
72.
An unwholesome layer cake: intermediary liability in English defamation and data protection law. in The Legal Challenges of Social Media (eds. Mangan, D. & Gillies, L. E.) (2017).
73.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
74.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
75.
Fafinski, S. Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. (Willan Pub, 2009).
76.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
77.
Fafinski, S. Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. (Willan Pub, 2009).
78.
Fafinski, S. Computer Misuse: The Implications of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The Journal of Criminal Law 72, 53–66 (2008).
79.
Gillespie, A. A. Cybercrime: Key Issues and Debates. (Routledge, 2019).
80.
Clough, J. Principles of Cybercrime. (Cambridge University Press, 2015). doi:10.1017/CBO9781139540803.
81.
Walden, I. Computer crimes and digital investigations. (Oxford University Press, 2016).
82.
Calderoni, F. The European legal framework on cybercrime: striving for an effective implementation. Crime, Law and Social Change 54, 339–357 (2010).
83.
Davies, G. Court of Appeal High Court. The Journal of Criminal Law 82, 296–300 (2018).
84.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
85.
Richards, Neil M.1 (AUTHOR). THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE. Harvard Law Review 126, 1934–1965 (2013).
86.
Addressing the Harm of Total Surveillance: A Reply to Professor Neil Richards - Harvard Law Review.
87.
Solove, D. J. I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review,.
88.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
89.
Ni Loideain, N. EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era. Media and Communication 3, (2015).
90.
Kouvakas, I. The Watson Case: Another Missed Opportunity for Stricto Sensu Proportionality. Cambridge Law Review,.
91.
Cameron, Iain. A. Court of Justice Balancing data protection and law enforcement needs: Tele2 Sverige and Watson. Common Market Law Review 54, 1467–1495.
92.
Law, policy, and the Internet. (Hart Publishing, 2019).
93.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U. & Charlesworth, A. Information technology law. (Routledge, 2017).
94.
Klerman, D. Forum Selling and Domain-Name Disputes. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,.
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 18, 274–300 (2010).
96.
Arnot, J. A. Navigating Cybersquatting Enforcement in the Expanding Internet. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law,.
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,.
99.
Geist, M. Fair.Com: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP. Brooklyn Journal of International Law,.
100.
Murray, A. Information technology law: the law & society. (Oxford University Press, 2019).
101.
Lindsay, D. Website Blocking Injunctions to Prevent Copyright Infringements: Proportionality and Effectiveness. University of New South Wales Law Journal,.
102.
Lodder, A. R. & Puck Polter. ISP blocking and filtering: on the shallow justification in case law regarding effectiveness of measures. European Journal of Law and Technology 8, (2017).
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,.
104.
Michael, W. & Rebecca, S. ‘Searching for the Silver Bullet: How Website Blocking Injunctions are Changing Online IP Enforcement. Australian Intellectual Property Journal 25, (2014).
105.
Bernd Justin Jütte*. The beginning of a (happy?) relationship: copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. European Intellectual Property Review 38, 11–22 (2016).
106.
Synodinou, T.-E. Intermediaries’ liability for online copyright infringement in the EU: Evolutions and confusions. Computer Law & Security Review 31, 57–67 (2015).
107.
Angelopoulos, C. Sketching the outline of a ghost: the fair balance between copyright and fundamental rights in intermediary third party liability. info 17, 72–96 (2015).
108.
Bryson, J. J., Diamantis, M. E. & Grant, T. D. Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law 25, 273–291 (2017).
109.
Guihot, M.; Matthew, A. F.; Suzor, N. P. Nudging Robots: Innovative Solutions to Regulate Artificial Intelligence. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law,.
110.
Reed, C. How should we regulate artificial intelligence? Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 376, (2018).
111.
Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence. (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
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.
113.
Science and Technology Committee, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (HC 2016-145).
114.
Artificial Intelligence Committee, AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? (HL 2018 - 100).
115.
Ryan Calo. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. California Law Review 103, (2015).
116.
Balkin, Jack M. The Path of Robotics Law.