Search

Saudi Arabia grants nationality to an AI robot; the first “clash of robots” took place in Japan; and, Bill Gates suggests that robots start paying taxes. We believe that these developments justify new legal fiction interventions. Software has long now exceeded the intellectual property boundaries. It is no longer merely property; it has assumed life of its own. It does not matter that such life is imaginary today. Legal persons were brought to life through legal fiction intervention that was based on much less motivation – merely the human incentive for profit. Software is certainly connected today with profit, given that the world's most valued corporations are software companies. However, it has moved much further than that, to assume in many ways artificial life of its own. We think that it is time that the dichotomy between natural and legal persons, that has served humanity so well over the past centuries, now be trisected: A new, digital person, ought to be added to it.

Recent advancements in human-computer interaction, machine learning and in artificial intelligence hold the potential to influence both the curriculum and the pedagogy of school children. While the impacts of new technologies remain uncertain, ongoing research and innovation projects are already developing and testing such technologies in schools. This article builds on the experience of the authors as advisors for a Horizon 2020 (H2020) project conducting research with schoolchildren in twenty schools across the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain (the project MaTHiSiS). This contribution presents and discusses how the authors lived up to the obligation of conducting research in line with “ethical principles”.

Owing to the unique qualities of genetic data, there have been numerous criticisms of the current data protection framework's ability to protect genetic data. It has been suggested that the Directive did not recognise the sensitivity of genetic data and that it ignored a number of legitimate interests in this data (in particular interests which multiple data subjects may have and those which may remain in anonymous data). In 2012, the first results of a reform process of EU data protection law were released. These results included a draft Regulation (to replace the Directive) which introduced a new framework for the protection of genetic data. This Article considers whether the innovative approach to genetic data in the Regulation will provide a more adequate framework for the protection of genetic data. It concludes that the Regulation has rectified the lack of recognition of sensitivity, but still stutters in recognising a number of legitimate interests.

The recent release by the European Commission of the first drafts for the amendment of the EU data protection regulatory framework is the culmination of a consulting and preparation process that lasted more than two years. At the same time, it opens up a law-making process that is intended to take at least as much time. The Commission has undertaken the herculean task to amend the whole EU data protection edifice, through the introduction of a General Data Protection Regulation, intended to replace the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, and a Police and Criminal Justice Data Protection Directive, intended to replace the Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. This paper shall focus at the replacement of the EU Data Protection Directive by the draft General Data Protection Regulation. Due to the fact that the draft Regulation is a long (and ambitious) text, a selection has been made, with the aim of highlighting its treatment of basic data protection principles and elements, in order to identify merits and shortcomings for the general data protection purposes.

This article offers a critical examination of the court judgements in a recent Belgian case against Yahoo!. It examines the challenges related to the establishment of jurisdiction for Internet-based services and the role that procedures of mutual legal assistance should play. Belgian law obliges providers of “electronic communications services/electronic communications networks” to cooperate with Belgian law-enforcement authorities and to handle over communication and personal data. Although the terms are derived from the EU Electronic Communications Regulatory Framework, a much broader interpretation to them was finally given by the Belgian Supreme Court. Seemingly this implies that, from now on, a US-based company such as Yahoo! is, at least under Belgian law, under a legal obligation to directly comply with an order issued by Belgian law-enforcement authorities.

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has suspended discussions over the release of a EU PNR processing system. Plans to introduce an intra-EU PNR processing system initiated since 2007, although strongly supported by the Commission and the Council, did not bear fruit before the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the, institutional, involvement of the Parliament. While discussions have been suspended since October 2009 and most probably a new draft proposal will be produced, it is perhaps useful to present in brief the proposal currently in place so as to highlight its shortcomings for European data protection and suggest ways individual protection may be strengthened in future drafts.

After more than three years in the making, that have witnessed much controversy, several working texts and at least two altogether different versions, the Data Protection Framework Decision “on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters” (hereafter, the DPFD) was finally adopted on 27 November 2008. The DPFD was supposed to be celebrated as the Data Protection Directive equivalent in European law enforcement (Third Pillar) processing. However, since its formal adoption, and even before that, data protection proponents (the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Article 29 Working Party, national Data Protection Commissioners, NGOs) lamented its adoption as the result of changes that ultimately compromised data protection. Is the DPFD a disappointment to the great expectations that accompanied its first draft, back in 2006? An attempt to address this question shall be undertaken in this paper.