MAY be… MAY be not!

24495485422_216d3285b6_o

by Pedro Madeira Froufe, Editor

We are a short time away from the European Parliament Election. We are also just over two months until the date of the formal implementation of Brexit. If all were going as desirable and planned, the United Kingdom would cease to be a member of the European Union at eleven o’clock of 29th March – if all were going as intended, as it was thought, after the no vote (to stay in the EU) in the referendum. But it is not! In fact, we don’t even know how the European elections will be disputed: with or without British candidates; how many MEPs to elect.

The political standoff in which the UK and the EU are immersed is the result of a classical democratic practise in its original context and dynamics. A national border-limited state, closed in itself and its people (its nationals), follows the idea that it holds a non-influenced sovereignty. Such un-limitedness would mean that nothing beyond its borders matter. Absolutely nothing could interfere with its presence as under this traditional and sovereign-ist political cosmovision nothing exists unless it is subject to the autonomous exercise of such sovereignty. However, the autonomous political decision of ‘disintegrating’ is, as many others, no longer a strictly encircled affair to be kept inside a territorial frame of political national frontiers. Today world’s dynamics is not national nor even inter-national. It is transnational, if not a-national. And rigorously speaking a decision made in an internal referendum never produces effects confined in such frontiers. The political decision made after the referendum is not a British decision and regards only British citizens – it is now clear in practical terms given the standoff we are all immersed in.
Continue reading “MAY be… MAY be not!”

Advertisements

European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment: what are the implications of this measure?

hand-3308188_960_720

 by Amanda Espiñeira, Master Student at University of Brasília

Artificial intelligence has become a topic of great interest for the advancement of the information society and automation. Through various themes, from art, gastronomy, the world of games, the various mechanisms that involve AI allow the expansion of human creativity and capabilities, and are very important, especially when it comes to judicial systems. A field that for a long time has remained closed to innovations and digital transformations, today it opens and allows that there is more celerity and transparency to the decisions of the legal world. In other words, AI promises to fill a gap in the area, which still has plastered processes, such as the registry offices, which are almost synonymous with bureaucracy.

However, the importance of the theme and its efficiency, debating ethical aspects in this area is extremely relevant because AI can extract insights, we could never come up using traditional data mining techniques. And is even more important in the context of recent data protection regulation, especially GDPR- General Data Protection Regulation.

Thus, the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe has adopted the first European text setting out ethical principles relating to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems, published on December 4, 2018[1].
Continue reading “European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment: what are the implications of this measure?”

Algorithm-driven collusion

grid-786084_960_720

 by Virgílio Pereira, collaborating member of CEDU

It has been said that digital markets are new and different.[i]  Indeed, competition enforcement reforms have already begun their journey, tackling the unorthodox dynamic of digital markets. Examples include the reforms taking place in Germany.[ii] They have entailed, among others, the possibility of setting up a digital agency, responsible for the supervision of digital markets, whose tasks would include dispute resolution in competition issues.[iii] Becoming vigilant and gathering know-how is certainly a valuable starting point.

Recently, the Council adopted the Commission’s proposal intended to empower Member States’ competition authorities to be more effective enforcers.[iv] It includes reinforcing competition authorities’ investigative powers, including their power to collect digital evidence. Discussion on the unorthodoxy of digital markets and challenges arising from them should take place within the context of the implementation of the Directive, or more generally, within the context of the European Competition Network.
Continue reading “Algorithm-driven collusion”

Editorial of January 2019

Property Intellectual Copyright Symbol Protection

 by Alexandre Veronese, Professor at University of Brasília


Article 13 and the vigilance dilemma

The first US battles about filtering

In light of the worldwide ongoing debate surrounding legal regimes over internet, in special the recent controversies on amendments proposals to applicable EU rules, such as Directive 96/9, Directive 2001/29 or Directive 2012/28, but most notably Article 13 of the (soon-to-be) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, it is of utmost importance to seek some perspective. The topic is relevant as much as complex with a range of aspects to consider. For instance, one of the approaches the EU is giving to the matter involves the use of internet (or digital tools in general) for new cultural purposes following the celebration in 2018 of the European Year of Cultural Heritage. In that regard, I had the opportunity to reflect upon this debate alongside Professor Alessandra Silveira, editor of the Blog of UNIO, and other colleagues in an excellent Portuguese podcast. In this post, I intend to shed some light in the global depth of the matter by analysing the American inaugural experience.

At the beginning of the widespread usage of the Internet, the United States society was immersed in a debate about how to deal with offensive content. In the 1990s, Internet had no boundaries and no firewalls to prevent the incoming waves of pornographic and unusual materials. Quickly, a political movement made a strong statement in order to protect American families from that threat. In 1996, the US Congress passed a bill named Communications Decency Act, also known as the CDA. The Bill was signed into Law by the former President Bill Clinton. The CDA was intended to provide an effective system to take down offensive content. Some of the founders of the Internet launched a campaign against the CDA. The now widely famous Electronic Frontier Foundation was the spearhead of the resistance. Until today, we remember the Declaration of Freedom in the Internet, which was written by John Perry Barlow. The major weapon of the resistance was the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Some lawsuits were filled and in a brief timespan the US Supreme Court took down the CDA for it was ruled as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court maintained the long-aged interpretation that the State must be out of any action to perform any possible kind of censorship (Reno v. ACLU, 1997).
Continue reading “Editorial of January 2019”