This paper analyses the selection, dissemination, and framing of media messages in day-to-day politics topic communities on Twitter
News and Research articles on United States
This paper examines three historical imaginaries associated with encryption, considering how they are intertwined in contemporary policy debates.
Given the weakness of consent-dependent agreements in relation to profiling and prediction markets, consumer protection needs improvement.
This paper is part of Australian internet policy, a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Angela Daly and Julian Thomas. Part I: The Data Retention Act In April 2015, the Australian government passed the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act, which requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telecommunications providers to store information about their subscribers’ online activity for a period of two years. The data retention rules apply to metadata – loosely defined as information that is not the 'content' of a communication. Generally, service providers must keep identifying information about their subscribers, including billing …
Papers in this special issue Introducing Australian internet policy: problems and prospects Angela Daly, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Julian Thomas, RMIT University, Australia The passage of Australia’s data retention regime: national security, human rights, and media scrutiny Nicolas Suzor, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Kylie Pappalardo, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Natalie McIntosh, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Computer network operations and ‘rule-with-law’ in Australia Adam Molnar, Deakin University, Australia Christopher Parsons, Citizen Lab, Canada Erik Zouave, KU Leuven, Belgium Internet accessibility and …
The author provides an overview of the legal and cultural discourse surrounding pornography in the European Union member state of Bulgaria, in times of 'new digital realities'.
Despite criticism, this charter "is unique in reaching out to engage with much broader audiences than any other digital charter did before," say digital policy advisers von Weizsäcker and Schräpel.
The internet and its regulation are the result of continuous conflicts. By analysing policy fields as fields of struggle, this essay proposes to observe processes of discursive institutionalisation to uncover core conflicts inscribed into internet policy.
This paper is part of Regulating the sharing economy, a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Kristofer Erickson and Inge Sørensen. Disclaimer: This study was completed with the support of the German service sector union ver.di. We would like to thank the participating platforms and their communities for the opportunity to conduct a survey. We would also like to thank the jovoto platform for the implementation of an idea contest. Thanks also go to Prof. Dr. Christian Fieseler, BI Norwegian Business School and Prof. Dr. Wrona, TU Hamburg-Harburg, for their comments and reviews. Any errors remain the responsibility of the authors. Introduction and objectives Working on …
As a scholar of constitutional law, of European and international law, having along the way gathered some knowledge of the workings of the internet, I am happy to present some perhaps somewhat revolutionary thoughts about governing in the future. The issue I was asked to deal with was: Governing the 21st century. Here are my thoughts about it.
The Russian 'dictatorship-of-the-law' paradigm is all but over: it is deploying online, with potentially harmful consequences for Russia's attempts to attract foreign investments in the internet sector, and for users' rights online.
The Safe Harbour Agreement between the EU and the US has been under fire for years. A landmark judgement by the European Court of Justice on 6 October not only invalidates the agreement. It boomerangs back to Europe in big ways.
This article examines the stance of the European Union vis-à-vis internet services company Google in two controversial instances: the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the implementation of EU competition rules.
The American aversion to big government is matched by the German aversion to big data. How to best reconcile the two privacy cultures, is the subject of this analysis.