1.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019).
2.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (2017).
3.
Edwards, L. ed: Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK (2019).
4.
Reed, C.: Making laws for cyberspace. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. (2012).
5.
Nissenbaum, H.F.: Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford Law Books, Stanford, Calif (2010).
6.
Cohen, J.E.: Configuring the networked self: law, code, and the play of everyday practice. Yale University Press, New Haven [Conn.].
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). https://doi.org/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. Oxford University Press, Oxford (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.
Rowland, D., et al. eds: Information Technology Law. Routledge, Abingdon (2017). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203798522.
13.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (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). https://doi.org/10.2307/1229518.
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, Cambridge, Mass.
20.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (2017).
21.
Edwards, L. ed: Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK (2019).
22.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (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. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019).
25.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (2017).
26.
Lynskey, O.: The foundations of EU data protection law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015).
27.
Poullet, Y.: Is the general data protection regulation the solution? Computer Law & Security Review. 34, 773–778 (2018). https://doi.org/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, 843–868.
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). https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipy002.
32.
Kuner, C.: Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post. German Law Journal. 18, 881–918 (2017). https://doi.org/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,.
34.
Vranaki, A.A.I.: Cloud investigations by European data protection authorities: an empirical account. In: Rothchild, J.A. (ed.) Research handbook on electronic commercelaw (2016).
35.
Koops, B.-J.: The trouble with European data protection law. International Data Privacy Law. 4, 250–261 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipu023.
36.
Raab, C., Szekely, I.: Data protection authorities and information technology. Computer Law & Security Review. 33, 421–433 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.05.002.
37.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (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,.
40.
Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S., Nissenbaum, H.F.: Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014).
41.
Rubinstein, I.S.: Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning? International Data Privacy Law. 3, 74–87 (2013). https://doi.org/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, H.F.: Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford Law Books, Stanford, Calif (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, London (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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.09.004.
48.
Cate, F.H., Mayer-Schonberger, V.: Notice and consent in a world of Big Data. International Data Privacy Law. 3, 67–73 (2013). https://doi.org/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,.
50.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019).
51.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (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, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2015).
58.
Barendt, E.M.: Freedom of speech. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
59.
Lazer, D.M.J.: The science of fake news. Science. 359, 1094–1096 (2018). https://doi.org/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,.
62.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019).
63.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (2017).
64.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (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). https://doi.org/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. ed: Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK (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). https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2015.1008960.
70.
Laidlaw, E.B.: Regulating Speech in Cyberspace. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015). https://doi.org/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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.034.
72.
Mangan, D., Gillies, L.E. eds: An unwholesome layer cake: intermediary liability in English defamation and data protection law. In: The Legal Challenges of Social Media (2017).
73.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (2017).
74.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019).
75.
Fafinski, S.: Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. Willan Pub, Cullompton, Devon (2009).
76.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019).
77.
Fafinski, S.: Computer misuse: response, regulation, and the law. Willan Pub, Cullompton, Devon (2009).
78.
Fafinski, S.: Computer Misuse: The Implications of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The Journal of Criminal Law. 72, 53–66 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2008.72.1.477.
79.
Gillespie, A.A.: Cybercrime: Key Issues and Debates. Routledge, Milton (2019).
80.
Clough, J.: Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139540803.
81.
Walden, I.: Computer crimes and digital investigations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016).
82.
Calderoni, F.: The European legal framework on cybercrime: striving for an effective implementation. Crime, Law and Social Change. 54, 339–357 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-010-9261-6.
83.
Davies, G.: Court of Appeal High Court. The Journal of Criminal Law. 82, 296–300 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018318791670.
84.
Murray, A.: Information technology law: the law & society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (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, Abingdon, Oxon (2017).
89.
Ni Loideain, N.: EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era. Media and Communication. 3, (2015). https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v3i2.297.
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.
Edwards, L. ed: Law, policy, and the Internet. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK (2019).
93.
Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A.: Information technology law. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon (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). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaq007.
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, Oxford (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). https://doi.org/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. 17, 72–96 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2015-0028.
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). https://doi.org/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,.
110.
Reed, C.: How should we regulate artificial intelligence? Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences. 376, (2018).
111.
Barfield, W., Pagallo, U. eds: Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK (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, 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. 103, (2015).
116.
Balkin, Jack M.: The Path of Robotics Law.