China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Transnational Intellectual Property Governance on the Internet
Published in Matthias C. Kettemann, Alexander Peukert, Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann, The Law of Global Digitality, 2022
Intermediaries providing services for online communication have for a long time occupied a central role in Internet governance in general and online IPR enforcement in particular. Firstly, “[n]othing happens online that does not involve one or more intermediaries” such as domain name registrars, access and host providers, search engines, advertising, and payment services.18 Secondly, and in contrast to anonymous pirates of cyberspace, intermediaries are worthwile targets of enforcement efforts who conduct a lawful business as part of the formal economy.19 Thirdly, they offer a solution for the problem of the scale of copyright and other IPR infringements online, which are so numerous that they could never be adjudicated in state court proceedings.20 Through the code with which intermediaries operate their services, they are able to enforce IPRs in many cases—in the case of Google search, billions—at relatively little cost. The answer to the problem of IPR infringements via digital network technologies is indeed “in the machine”, and these machines are controlled by private intermediaries.21
Multilateralism and Artificial Intelligence
Published in Maurizio Tinnirello, The Global Politics of Artificial Intelligence, 2022
Digitalisation and AI will definitely stay on the international agenda in the foreseeable future. The HLP report endorsed “multi-stakeholderism” to get a more diverse spectrum of participants involved in governance in the digital sphere. One of the options was to revamp the Internet Governance Forum in order to advance the concept of an IGF+ model, open to all stakeholders and institutionally connected to the UN system.59 As Kaljurand pointed out, the IGF+ would comprise of five bodies: 1) an advisory group appointed by Secretary-General; 2) a cooperation accelerator; 3) a policy incubator to propose norms and policies; 4) an observatory and help desk to give advice on drafting legislation or tackling crisis situations; and 5) a trust fund linked to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General “to reflect its interdisciplinary and system-wide approach.”60
Emerging crisis
Published in Riikka Koulu, Law, Technology and Dispute Resolution, 2018
Another form of reputation system tries to provide a trust mark for those market places with a functioning ODR system that follows certain criteria of access to justice. Ponte suggests that these trust marks be granted by a transnational authority, which would be established by the cooperation of governmental institutions. Such trust mark would include an enforcement function as well as minimum criteria for due process. Trust marks would be granted to businesses that follow the rules of such an international Convention. Non-compliance with an ODR decision would lead to temporary or permanent loss of the trust mark.45 However, there are several difficulties with creating a system of trust marks. If the intention is to create a transnational system similar to the New York Convention, government action is needed. Until now, the success of engaging different states in developing ODR standards has been low. Also, there is an issue related to Internet governance. Ponte suggests that a non-complying merchant would be banned from e-commerce altogether – a task that is not an actual option when taking into consideration the disharmonious infrastructure of Internet. Regardless, trust marks have a similar inherent problem as feedback systems: they regulate future behaviour, but outside a Convention for enforcement they do little for the singular case.
Cyberspace and Personal Cyber Insurance: A Systematic Review
Published in Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2023
Richard McGregor, Carmen Reaiche, Stephen Boyle, Graciela Corral de Zubielqui
Although the Internet is the primary conduit for cyber threats (as a public domain resource), cyberspace is generally considered all networks that connect IT systems29 (including network environments such as LAN and WAN) where “ … information is stored and communication takes place”30 p. 77]. This highly technical interpretation is similarly supported by the United States Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms31 p. 64], which defines cyberspace as “… a global domain within the information environment consisting of the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures and resident data, including the internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems and embedded processors and controllers.” Considering cyberspace as a solely technological domain is a common theme within current literature; however, in recent years cyberspace and associated definitions has spread to a myriad of disciplines ranging (non-exhaustively) from information and national security, international law and cybercrime, the social-political domains, Internet governance, and even cyber-geography.32 As stated by Lambach in his essay, “The Territorialization of Cyberspace,” “… cyberspace can no longer be conceived as separate from the ‘off-line world’”33 p. 483]. It is evident, ergo, that the definition of cyberspace requires a holistic approach that facilitates generic understanding, regardless of domain or scenario.
The relationship between online political participation and privacy protection: evidence from 10 Asian societies of different levels of cybersecurity
Published in Behaviour & Information Technology, 2022
Behavioural psychologists posited that behaviours are learned through interaction with the environment (Skinner 1965). People learn new behaviours and adjust their current behaviours based on external conditions (Skinner 1965). Internet use pattern varies across countries due to internet environmental factors, such as the levels of accessibility, privacy laws, and measures for internet governance (Greenleaf 2014; Oderkirk, Ronchi, and Klazinga 2013; Wright, Finn, and Rodrigues 2013). An analysis of Twitter users from more than 100 societies found that internet penetration is a significant predictor of privacy setting adoption and geolocation self-disclosure (Liang, Shen, and Fu 2017). Another study found that people from countries with government regulation of information privacy even desired more regulation than people from countries with no government regulation (Bellman et al. 2004; Milberg, Smith, and Burke 2000). A meta-analysis also suggested that the results of privacy studies varied across cultural orientation, and national legal systems (Baruh, Secinti, and Cemalcilar 2017).