Regulating Internet Content through Intermediaries in Europe and the USA

Frydman, Benoît; Rorive, Isabelle

doi:10.1515/zfrs-2002-0104

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the internet became available to the public in the mid-1990s we have seen proposals and legal efforts in numerous countries to make intermediaries responsible for controlling pornography, racist materials, blasphemy, defamation, cyber-bullying, "anti-social" speech, and intellectual property rights (Frydman & Rorive, 2002;OpenNet Initiative, n.d.). ISPs are now envisioned as being on the front lines of cyber conflicts, with the capacity to play defence against interna-tional threats-if only we could agree on an appropriate set of responsibilities for them (Greenberg, 2010).…”

Section: Nodal Governance Around the Netmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telecom Responsibilization: Internet Governance, Surveillance, and New Roles for Intermediaries

Zajko¹

2016

CJC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Nodal Governance Around the Netmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telecom Responsibilization: Internet Governance, Surveillance, and New Roles for Intermediaries

Zajko¹

2016

CJC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, in order to regulate the activities of individual internet users, it is generally much easier for the state to rely on large online intermediaries, such as cloud operators, and delegate to them the responsibility to enforce legal norms onto their users (Bartling & Fischbacher, 2012). The regime of intermediaries liability limitations established in several countries across the world6 is an example of the growing tendency to rely on private enforcement mechanisms as a means to ensure proper application of the law in the digital world (Frydman & Rorive, 2002;Swartout, 2011). Yet, moving into the realm of decentralised architectures, it becomes more and more difficult to establish the entity that could be regarded as an actual "intermediary."…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flawed cloud architectures and the rise of decentral alternatives

Filippi¹

2013

Internet Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The high degree of centralisation that characterises many cloud-based services raises a series of challenges in terms of (a) security, due to there being only a few points of failure or attack, (b) privacy, due to the users' lack of control over the collection and use of personal data, and (c) user autonomy, given that users increasingly depend on third parties services and infrastructures. After analysing the drawbacks of traditional cloud computing platforms, this article provides an overview of how civil society is progressively challenging the centralised cloud establishment by providing decentralised alternatives to cloud computing which could potentially help overcome these drawbacks.

show abstract

“…applied the immunity provision in an extensive manner'. 106 In Europe, a patchwork of different national co-regulatory arrangements based on the national legal implementation of the ECD is increasingly subject to CJEU. CJEU in its 2011 l'Oréal v. eBay judgment 107 began to circumscribe the degree of 218 C.T.…”

Section: Judicial Review and Co-regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internet co-regulation and constitutionalism: Towards European judicial review

Marsden

2012

International Review of Law, Computers & Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes co-regulation, by defining and exploring its recent institutional history in the Internet environment. It then assesses the legal definitions and taxonomies of co-regulation before constructing a 12-point scale of self-and coregulation. The term 'co-regulation' encompasses a range of different regulatory phenomena, which have in common the fact that the regulatory regime is made up of a complex interaction of general legislation and a self-regulatory body. Co-regulation has enriched conceptions of 'soft law' or 'governance' in the literature in the past ten years, but like those umbrella terms, refers to forms of hybrid regulation that do not meet the administrative and statute-based legitimacy of regulation, yet clearly perform some elements of public policy more than self-regulation, which is defined by the absence of formal roles for the nation-state or European law. Co-regulation is often identified with the rise of the 'new governance' in the 1990s. Recent European case law has seen a long overdue emphasis placed on human rights in judicial review of co-regulatory arrangements. Without regulation responsive to both the market and the need for constitutional protection of fundamental rights, Internet regulatory measures cannot be self-sustaining.

show abstract

Regulating Internet Content through Intermediaries in Europe and the USA

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Telecom Responsibilization: Internet Governance, Surveillance, and New Roles for Intermediaries

Telecom Responsibilization: Internet Governance, Surveillance, and New Roles for Intermediaries

Flawed cloud architectures and the rise of decentral alternatives

Internet co-regulation and constitutionalism: Towards European judicial review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About