Analysis of ways of limiting secrecy of correspondence in Russian judicial practice.
The question of creating the legal framework for the administration of the digital data of a user is more than relevant considering the currently widespread use of the Internet services. The most prominent angle of this issue is probably the legal framework for the digital death. Comparative analysis of the approaches taken in USA, France, Germany and Canada allows for the clarification of the subject. There are two primary legal aspects to be viewed in this regard: personal, putting accent on the personal rights of the user and praising the autonomy of will over the destiny of the data left on Internet after the perished person, and patrimonial, which is mostly centered on the civil law aspects of the matter. The latter includes the contractual tendency, either relying on the transmission of the contractual rights in terms and conditions of use after the death of the user, or enforcing terms and conditions previewed in this regard by the Internet service. Another tendency involves the evaluation of certain data inside the digital identity of the deceased as a digital asset of a specific value, including the intellectual property. It is recommended to consider the personal aspect while creating the legal framework for digital death in Russia, respecting the immaterial personal rights of the perished. The framework should be focused on the right to access for the heirs or a representative rather than on the contractual rights or the digital assets transmission, for this is the only way to ensure privacy after the death of the user.
Internet technology makes digital value transactions between anonymous individuals possible, but leaves unanswered the question of how to resolve disputes between unidentified parties. Blockchain dispute resolution platforms provide a response to this problem. In the social dispute resolution systems for blockchain currently in use, pseudo anonymous jurors can resolve disputes between pseudo anonymous parties. This paper presents Kleros as the most illustrative blockchain dispute resolution platform BDRP. To describe the features of the Kleros dispute resolution platform and the qualification of jurors, this research employs an online dispute resolution survey of both the jurors and stakeholders of the Kleros platform. This study raises important questions about key elements of procedural justice in resolution platforms for blockchain disputes. The research underlines the pros and cons of dispute resolution for crowdsourced blockchain and contributes to the further development of online dispute resolution systems. It tests the wisdom of the crowd as the core attribute of the resolution process in crowdsource disputes. Crowdsource mass dispute resolution, coupled with cooperative jurors and blockchain technology, could ensure greater effectiveness and fairness of the dispute resolution process, especially the adjudication of online small claims disputes.
This article is an attempt to consider the problems and obstacles associated with international recognition of Artist's Resale Right. Disclosing economical, legal and social aspects, along with the current law situation within the biggest no-resale rights countries, the authors have concluded that there is no significant barrier to introduce it trough-out the world.
This article considers the problems and obstacles associated with international recognition of the Artist's Resale Right. After examining economic, legal and social aspects of that right together with the current legal situation within the main countries that have so far rejected it, the authors conclude that there is no significant barrier to introducing it throughout the world.
This article aims to address the theoretical and practical issues of fiduciary relationship with artificial intelligence systems. The findings point out that human can establish conditional fiduciary relationships with autonomous artificial intelligence systems by unilateral recognition, or authorization by consent. Artificial intelligence systems can have a social personality when authorized by humans. Although AI cannot sue and be sued without recognition of a legal personality. This paper provides an original contribution to the existing knowledge on the nature of self-learning machines and international regulation of autonomous artificial intelligence systems.
Recent trends in artificial intelligence development have led to a proliferation of studies on the ability of artificial intelligence systems generate artistic works. Debate continues about the general benefit of society from artistic and scientific works made by artificial intelligence systems. Questions have been raised about infringement of copyright by artificial intelligence. The present article examines the modern approaches to regulation of artificial intelligence and the role of humans in the creation of artistic work. The main purpose of the research is to prevent unfair use of original works created by human and discuss originality in artistic work generated by artificial intelligence. Overall, these studies highlight the needs for the protection of human copyrights in the event of commercial exploitation by artificial intelligence system and the protection of the general public from mass distribution of artificial pseudo-scientific works.
The paper focuses on civil law remedies for violations of data subjects’ rights: claims for damages and claims for compensation of moral harm. Based on an analysis of academic literature, as well as of Russian and international case law, it is argued that, although these remedies are endorsed by the GDPR and other laws, they are inadequate and do not conform to the requirements for an “effective remedy” stipulated by major international legal documents on human rights. The main reasons are: 1) difficulties in proving the fact and the amount of a legally recognized category of damage because the typical consequences of data privacy violations (e.g. the chilling effect caused by dataveillance, negative emotional reactions, etc.) are not considered legally significant by the courts; 2) inability to prove with a substantial degree of certainty a causal link between the violation and the damage incurred because such damage occurs remotely and within complex flows of data. This produces an imbalance in the enforcement of data protection laws so that public law remedies such as administrative fines predominate. This approach is not compatible with the goals of empowering the individual and ensuring control over usage of one’s data because there cannot be effective control without an effective remedy to enforce it. In practice this leads to under enforcement of data protection laws because under-resourced data protection authorities cannot address most of the violations that pertain to data protection. A new type of remedy that would resemble the statutory damages applicable to copyright infringement in some jurisdictions should be introduced. Its punitive and decentralized nature would become an additional incentive for data controllers to invest in compliance with data protection laws. From a long-term perspective, it may facilitate including individuals in management of their personal data, without which it would be impossible to effectively address the risks brought about by massive and ubiquitous data processing and algorithmic decision-making.
The paper is focused on analysis of compliance with personal data legislation of electronic permits and mobile application “Social monitoring” implemented in Moscow among the other anti-COVID measures. Based on analysis of publicly available documents governing their application and statements made by government officials, it is concluded that these systems are not compliant with the requirements of personal data legislation. The paper also contains author’s view on how to ensure such compliance in the future, and that it will require amendments in the federal legislation.
This article is devoted to the analysis of existing civil law norms and case law applicable to the regulation of commercialization of datasets as one of the potentially most significant assets in the digital economy. The article provides a definition of a dataset and considers its possible place in the system of civil rights objects, as well as the likelyhood of qualification as a database, know-how, services, or “other property”. It is concluded that it is impossible to adequately regulate and protect datasets within the above mentioned legal regimes, both due to existing problems in definitions and because of their incompatibility with the essence of relations arising from the collection and processing of data. The article also discusses the relationship between the civil law and legislation on personal data in the commercialization of datasets associated with individuals, as well as the legislative trends in this area.
The article addresses, following the court ruling of the French jurisdiction, the possible legal reasoning that could enlarge the interpretation of private property rights as regards the capture and use of the images of a property by third parties. The cases viewed in the article also help to delimitate the line between the classical property rights, personal rights and the rights in the intellectual property. French legal reasoning could be helpful for Russian lawyers in similar disputes.
The article is devoted to the regulation of communication privacy, which is not only a guarantee of the individual right to confidentiality, privacy, but also a necessary condition for the collective good-freedom of speech, trust in communication services, which is essential for the formation of the information society.
The right to communication privacy with the advent of new communication technologies is being transformed and expanded, which requires updating and harmonization of the legal framework. In this regard, the purpose of the research is to reveal problems and contradictions in the updating legal regulation of communication privacy, including by analyzing of legislation and existent scientific approaches to the content of communication privacy, description of mechanisms for both ensuring and limiting communication privacy, as well as interaction of legal entities regarding communication privacy. There have been considered the relationship between Russian and European legislation, which regulate communication privacy (ePrivacy) in this paper. The research methodology is represented by such methods as dialectical, analysis, analogies, formal-legal, comparative methods of research activity.
The research demonstrates different approaches to determining the content of the right to communication privacy, expanding the range of professional subjects of communication privacy, and "loosening " the mechanisms for limiting this right in the direction of its expansion in the context of interrelations between subjects of legal relations concerning communication privacy.
The paper presents an overview of the new Russian law on eHealth and analyses legal issues concerning health information exchange and personal data processing in eHealth according to the Russian legislation
As rights holders, courts, and policy makers worldwide struggle with the question of copyright infringement and the potential liability of internet service providers (ISPs) worldwide, Russia developed – and subsequently abandoned – a proposal for the creation of a global license to be imposed on ISPs which would allow for rights holders to be compensated for copyright-infringing activities carried out through those ISPs.
Russia is not the first jurisdiction to look at a global license as solution to the wide spread of copyright infringements online. By analysing the Russian proposal for a global license, this article addresses the sustainability of such a model on a wider scale by analysing the legal implications this may cause. In this context, this article will address the Russian proposal's legislative history before moving into a substantive discussion about the synergies between legal justifications and merits of a global license.