Guido Noto La Diega
An award-winning Italy-born naturalised British law academic with a passion for the law of emerging technologies, Professor Guido Noto La Diega (they/he/lui) is Professor of Law, Technology and Innovation and Programme Leader of the LLM/MSc Law, Technology and Innovation, as well as Coordinator of the namesake research cluster. An expert in the European, Italian, and British legal and regulatory approaches to Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, cloud computing, robotics, and blockchain, Noto La Diega’s work is animated by the conviction that the law should steer innovation in a socially just, inclusive and sustainable direction.
Holder of a PhD (Unipa), a postdoc (QMUL), and an HEA Fellowship, Noto La Diega is the author of the groundbreaking open-access book Internet of Things and the Law and of several articles in leading international journals (e.g. European Journal of Law & Technology) and mainstream press features e.g. Vogue and Wired. Noto La Diega’s works – published in English and Italian, and translated into Chinese, Russian, and Korean – have been cited by the EU Court of Justice's Advocate General and the House of Lords, amongst others. As a member of the European Commission’s Expert Group on AI in Education, Noto La Diega contributed to the EU Guidelines on AI in Education.
Noto La Diega has been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Horizon Europe, the German Research Foundation, The Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Society of Legal Scholars, the British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association, the Modern Law Review, and Santander. They are leading the half-a-million-pound international project From Smart Technologies to Smart Laws. They have 14 years’ academic experience in the UK, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, Brazil, and the US, and they have delivered keynote speeches and presented their research in prestigious venues including the WTO Public Forum in Geneva and the IP Scholars Conference in New York.
Find out more at https://linktr.ee/guidonld and add me on LinkedIn.
ORCID: 0000-0001-6918-5398
Phone: +447708928768
Address: 1/2, 25 Herriet street
Holder of a PhD (Unipa), a postdoc (QMUL), and an HEA Fellowship, Noto La Diega is the author of the groundbreaking open-access book Internet of Things and the Law and of several articles in leading international journals (e.g. European Journal of Law & Technology) and mainstream press features e.g. Vogue and Wired. Noto La Diega’s works – published in English and Italian, and translated into Chinese, Russian, and Korean – have been cited by the EU Court of Justice's Advocate General and the House of Lords, amongst others. As a member of the European Commission’s Expert Group on AI in Education, Noto La Diega contributed to the EU Guidelines on AI in Education.
Noto La Diega has been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Horizon Europe, the German Research Foundation, The Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Society of Legal Scholars, the British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association, the Modern Law Review, and Santander. They are leading the half-a-million-pound international project From Smart Technologies to Smart Laws. They have 14 years’ academic experience in the UK, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, Brazil, and the US, and they have delivered keynote speeches and presented their research in prestigious venues including the WTO Public Forum in Geneva and the IP Scholars Conference in New York.
Find out more at https://linktr.ee/guidonld and add me on LinkedIn.
ORCID: 0000-0001-6918-5398
Phone: +447708928768
Address: 1/2, 25 Herriet street
less
InterestsView All (40)
Uploads
Books by Guido Noto La Diega
The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Book at https://www.routledge.com/Internet-of-Things-and-the-Law-Legal-Strategies-for-Consumer-Centric-Smart/Diega/p/book/9781138604797
Twenty-eight jurisdictions worldwide have now legalised same-sex marriage and many others some level of civil partnership. In contrast other jurisdictions refuse to recognise or even criminalise same-sex relationships. At a Council of Europe level, there is no requirement for contracting states to legalise same-sex marriage. Whilst the Court of Justice of the European Union now requires contracting states to recognise same-sex marriages for the purpose of free movement and residency rights, unlike the US Supreme Court, it does not require EU Member States to legalise same-sex marriage. Law and Sociology scholars from five key jurisdictions (England and Wales, Italy, Australia, Canada, and the Republic of Ireland) examine the role of the Council of Europe, European Union and further international regimes. A balanced approach between the competing views of critically analytical rights based theorists and queer and feminist theorists interrogates the current international consensus in this fast moving area. The incrementalist theory whilst offering a methodology for future advances continues to be critiqued. All contributions from differing perspectives expose that even for those jurisdictions who have legalised same-sex marriage, still further and continuous work needs to be done.
Lo studio prende le mosse da una ricostruzione dell'ordinamento universitario, per poi concentrarsi sul tema delle fondazioni universitarie. Dando conto tanto di quelle istituite in forza della legge 388/2000 (e del d.P.R. 254/2001), quanto di quelle di cui al decreto-legge 112/2008 convertito in legge 133/2008 (c.d. riforma Gelmini), l'Autore ne pone in luce aspetti positivi e dubbi di incostituzionalità, giungendo a proporre nuove forme di partenariato pubblico-privato
Articles by Guido Noto La Diega
After becoming a global leader in the field of digital regulation with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – which prompted similar laws across the globe, from California through Turkey to China – the European Union (EU) is at it again with the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. The latter will ban certain practices (e.g. face recognition for law enforcement purposes) and impose human oversight, transparency, and other requirements on providers of high-risk AI systems (e.g. automated systems used in recruitment) . When it comes to the IoT, conversely, no ‘IoT Act’ is on the horizon. This makes it harder to get a clear sense of how this socio-technological phenomenon is being regulated in Europe.
While in the future we expect to see IoT-related interventions in the fields of standard essential patents (SEPs), standards, product liability, and common European data spaces, there are already some instruments that aim to introduce tools to access otherwise locked-up smart data. In this chapter, I focus on the relevant provisions in the Open Data Directive, Data Governance Act, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, and the AI Act, and see how data access and transparency obligations are balanced against IPRs. Previous research looked at how this balance is struck under the GDPR and the proposed Data Act. Those studies shed light on the emerging conflict between an approach to data governance informed by human rights, sustainability, and social justice – whereby citizens must be given data control, which includes the right to access, reuse, and port the data – and a market-oriented neoliberal one that regards data solely as a commodity to be appropriated and monetised. This paper tests whether those findings can be generalised, and in particular whether it can be said that in the European regulation of smart data the reasons of openness are prevailing over those of private property.
The EU lawmaker should leave it to the already hypertrophic framework of IP laws to protect the proprietary interests of IoT big tech. EU data governance laws should be focused on creating the conditions for unencumbered data flow; and IP proviso are likely to be exploited to effectively sterilise the ethos of openness of the new laws. Their focus should be on providing a combination of access rights, duties, and powers, accompanied by public and private enforcement, judicial and administrative redress, and effective controls over the role of private players in rule-setting and enforcing. Too much is at stake: EU’s competitiveness, its role as digital regulation leader, and its contribution to tackling the big societal challenges of our time.
Traditional consumer protection approaches, epitomised by the Consumer Rights Directive, are focused on pre-contractual duties to inform consumers. Their benefit to IoT consumers is limited by their reflecting a text-based paradigm, whereby information must be legible. This is not fit for the IoT, where displays tend to disappear and information is provided in audio or video formats. Consumer laws are drafted on the assumption of information asymmetries in business-to-consumer contracts, but they fail to account for the power imbalances that permeate IoT transactions. These power imbalances are exacerbated by control over a wealth of user data and corresponding granular knowledge of consumers’ vulnerabilities, behaviors, and biases. This knowledge can be used to impose opaque practices on consumers; among these, IoT data appropriation by means of trade secrets plays a key role.
Therefore, an emergent concern is whether the law provides tools that effectively safeguard consumers’ interests, in particular by ensuring substantial transparency as to the actual use of their personal data. How can this can be guaranteed, and the consumer empowered in a post-interface world of profoundly imbalanced relationships? The answer cannot be found solely within the trade secrets’ regime: data protection needs to be considered.
This article focuses on the trade secrets exceptions of legitimate interest and freedom of information, and on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)’s rights to access, data portability, information, and not to be subject to solely automated decisions. We put forward that trade secrets’ exceptions and GDPR rights re-balance the interests of consumers vis-à-vis big IoT players such as Amazon. Specifically, they can positively contribute to transparency, consumers autonomy, information symmetry, data portability, and freedom of choice. We propose a holistic approach that empowers consumers by countering data appropriation, thus redistributing data control.
Please cite as Guido Noto La Diega and Cristiana Sappa, ‘The Internet of Things at the intersection of data protection and trade secrets. Non-conventional paths to counter data appropriation and empower consumers’ (2020) 3 Revue européenne de droit de la consommation / European Journal of Consumer Law 419-458
PLEASE CITE AS Guido Noto La Diega, ‘Блокчейн, смарт контракт и авторское право’ (2019) 14(3) Труды Института государства и права РАН 9
Questo contributo riguarda le banche dati in cui si ricorre all’Intelligenza Artificiale per il conseguimento, la verifica o la presentazione dei relativi contenuti (‘banche dati IA’). La domanda fondamentale cui ci si propone di rispondere è se le banche dati IA possano essere protette dal diritto d’autore e dal diritto sui generis come disciplinati dalla Direttiva sulle Banche Dati. La convinzione che il diritto sui generis non sia adatto ai dati generati in modo automatico (c.d. machine-generated data) ha portato il Parlamento Europeo a invocarne l’abolizione e la Commissione a proporre l’introduzione di un nuovo diritto per il produttore di dati non personali. La tesi principale del presente lavoro è che, contrariamente all’opinione dominante, il diritto sui generis ben si attagli all’IA e, più in generale, ai machine-generated data. Una diversa conclusione, invero, porterebbe ad eccessi proprietari per mezzo contrattuale e, in pari tempo, fornirebbe una giustificazione per l’introduzione del nuovo diritto del produttore dei dati, ultimo tassello di una deriva proprietaria che parrebbe inarrestabile. Qualora si accetti che il diritto sui generis sia sufficientemente flessibile da potersi adattare all’IA, ne seguirebbe che esso potrebbe costituire la soluzione al problema annoso della protezione delle opera dell’ingegno create dall’IA. La dottrina minoritaria, infatti, relega queste ultime al dominio pubblico perché in esse mancherebbe – e quest’autore ne conviene – quel tocco personale che connota la creatività nel diritto d’autore europeo. In questo contributo, in conclusione, si propone di sfruttare l’assenza del requisito della creatività e proteggere le opere dell’ingegno create dall’IA in modo indiretto tramite, appunto, la costituzione di una banca dati protetta dal diritto sui generis, che potrebbe alfine liberarsi dale maglie asfittiche a cui la Corte di Giustizia dell’UE l’ha sin qui condannato.
power is not distributed.
This research has been carried out with the generous support of the SLS Society of Legal Scholars.
Please cite as Guido Noto La Diega, ‘‘Can the law fix the problems of fashion? An empirical study on social norms and power imbalance in the fashion industry’ (2018) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, jpy097, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy097
This work presents ten arguments against algorithmic decision-making. These revolve around the concepts of ubiquitous discretionary interpretation, holistic intuition, algorithmic bias, the three black boxes, psychology of conformity, power of sanctions, civilising force of hypocrisy, pluralism, empathy, and technocracy.
The lack of transparency of the algorithmic decision-making process does not stem merely from the characteristics of the relevant techniques used, which can make it impossible to access the rationale of the decision. It depends also on the abuse of and overlap between intellectual property rights (the “legal black box”). In the US, nearly half a million patented inventions concern algorithms; more than 67% of the algorithm-related patents were issued over the last ten years and the trend is increasing.
To counter the increased monopolisation of algorithms by means of intellectual property rights (with trade secrets leading the way), this paper presents three legal routes that enable citizens to ‘open’ the algorithms.
First, copyright and patent exceptions, as well as trade secrets are discussed.
Second, the GDPR is critically assessed. In principle, data controllers are not allowed to use algorithms to take decisions that have legal effects on the data subject’s life or similarly significantly affect them. However, when they are allowed to do so, the data subject still has the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view, as well as to contest the decision. Additionally, the data controller shall provide meaningful information about the logic involved in the algorithmic decision.
Third, this paper critically analyses the first known case of a court using the access right under the freedom of information regime to grant an injunction to release the source code of the computer program that implements an algorithm.
Only an integrated approach – which takes into account intellectual property, data protection, and freedom of information – may provide the citizen affected by an algorithmic decision of an effective remedy as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Recommended citation: Guido Noto La Diega, Against the Dehumanisation of Decision-Making – Algorithmic Decisions at the Crossroads of Intellectual Property, Data Protection, and Freedom of Information, 9 (2018) JIPITEC 3 para 1
Le concept de publicité comportementale en ligne désigne des publicités adaptées aux goûts et aux habitudes de l’utilisateur pour qui elles s’affichent. Il s’agit d’un phénomène complexe pour différentes raisons, dont notamment une double question réglementaire : d’abord, elle génère un débat entre la nécessité d’une régulation du haut vers le bas ou d’une autorégulation; ensuite, elle confronte une approche centrée sur la protection des données personnelles aux tendances du marché. Le présent article a pour but de dissiper le postulat selon lequel les problématiques relatives à la publication comportementale en ligne sont déterminantes pour un environnement en ligne équitable. La contribution traite en particulier des nouvelles législations (Projet de Règlement ePrivacy et Règlement général sur la protection des données), qui font craindre des changements entrepreneuriaux (par exemple, la synchronisation des données Facebook/WhatsApp), et l’avènement de nouvelles technologies. Il sera démontré, en particulier, que l’intelligence artificielle comporte certes des menaces pour les consommateurs, mais aussi des opportunités propices à la mise en place de mécanismes de compliance adaptés. ’instrument «Cooperative Charter for an Integrated Approach to Online Behavioural Advertising» est présenté en annexe. Il vise à faciliter un dialogue entre les différents groupes d’intérêts et à assurer une réglementation équilibrée de la publicité comportementale en ligne.
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido Noto La Diega, ‘Some considerations on intelligent online behavioural advertising’ (2017) 66-67 Revue du droit des technologies de l'information 53-90
The full paper will be available after the embargo ends
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido NOTO LA DIEGA, The Internet of Citizens. A lawyer’s view on some technological developments in the United Kingdom and India, in Indian Journal of Law & Technology, 2017, 12(1), 53-104.
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido NOTO LA DIEGA, Software patents and the Internet of Things in Europe, the United States, and India, in European Intellectual Property Review, 2017, 39(3), 173-184.
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido NOTO LA DIEGA, Software patents and the Internet of Things in Europe, the United States, and India, in European Intellectual Property Review, 2017, 39(3), 173-184.
THE FULL ARTICLE IS STILL UNDER COPYRIGHT.
This article sheds light on the main consumer law aspects of the sharing economy through an empirical analysis of online platforms. Given the recent European consultation with the purpose of understanding (whether, or, more likely) how to regulate platforms, it is critical that consumer law considerations will be part of future regulations. For instance, it is hardly acceptable that the consumer acts in the belief that the contractual party (thus the potentially liable party) is the platform, but in reality the former disclaims any responsibility and claims to be a mere intermediary , which only seldom actually is. After a critical analysis of the Italian legislative proposal on platforms and collaborative economy, the articles moves on to illustrate the use case of Uber, the $60 billion ride-hailing platform, which is acting at the margin of existing laws, thus giving rise to protests and debate around the world. After an assessment of the Italian ruling preventing Uber to provide the UberPop service in Italy, the use case is the perfect tool to show the main reasons for concern of consumers is the lack of awareness of their rights and obligations. This articles deals with two factors of the said lack: the contractual quagmire and the corporate labyrinth. In the conclusions, it is presented an ambitious, albeit feasible, practical proposal. It is suggested the development of a mobile app that helps the consumers to assess the legal quality of the contracts they are entering in order to access the services offered through the platform. At the same time, this app, called 'Awareness by Design', should contribute to raise awareness in consumers, thus creating critical mass and making platforms understand that trust, transparency, and accountability are competitive advantages.
Cet article met en lumière les principaux aspects de droit de la consommation de l'écono-mie de partage à travers une analyse empirique des plates-formes en ligne. Compte tenu de la consultation européenne récente dans le but de comprendre (si, ou, plus probablement) la façon de réglementer les plates-formes, il est essentiel que les considérations de droit de la consommation fassent partie des futurs règlements. Par exemple, il est difficilement acceptable que le consommateur agisse dans la conviction que le cocontractant (donc la partie potentiel-lement responsable) est la plate-forme, alors qu'en réalité, celle-ci décline toute responsabilité et prétend être un simple intermédiaire. Après une analyse critique de la proposition législative italienne sur les plates-formes et de l'économie collaborative, les articles illustrent le cas d'uti-lisation de Uber, la plate-forme de covoiturage à 60 milliards de dollars, qui agit à la marge des lois en vigueur, ce qui donne lieu à des protestations et des débats autour du monde. Après une évaluation de la décision italienne empêchant Uber de fournir le service de UberPop en Ita-lie, l'examen de ce régime est l'outil idéal pour exposer que le principal motif de préoccupation des consommateurs concerne la connaissance de leurs droits et obligations. Cet article traite de deux facteurs qui sont à la base de cette difficulté : la multitude des contrats et le labyrinthe des entreprises. Dans les conclusions, il sera présenté une proposition pratique ambitieuse, mais réalisable. Il sera suggéré de développer une application mobile qui aide les consommateurs évaluer la qualité juridique des contrats qu'ils souscrivent dans le but d'accéder aux services offerts par la plate-forme. Dans le même temps, cette application, appelée « conscience by Design », devrait contribuer à sensibiliser les consommateurs, créant ainsi une masse critique et à faire comprendre aux plates-formes que la confiance, la transparence et la responsabilité sont des avantages concurrentiels.
Here is the summary of the issue http://editionslarcier.larciergroup.com/titres/134650_2_0/revue-europeenne-de-droit-de-la-consommation-european-journal-of-consumer-law-r-e-d-c-2015-2.html
The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Book at https://www.routledge.com/Internet-of-Things-and-the-Law-Legal-Strategies-for-Consumer-Centric-Smart/Diega/p/book/9781138604797
Twenty-eight jurisdictions worldwide have now legalised same-sex marriage and many others some level of civil partnership. In contrast other jurisdictions refuse to recognise or even criminalise same-sex relationships. At a Council of Europe level, there is no requirement for contracting states to legalise same-sex marriage. Whilst the Court of Justice of the European Union now requires contracting states to recognise same-sex marriages for the purpose of free movement and residency rights, unlike the US Supreme Court, it does not require EU Member States to legalise same-sex marriage. Law and Sociology scholars from five key jurisdictions (England and Wales, Italy, Australia, Canada, and the Republic of Ireland) examine the role of the Council of Europe, European Union and further international regimes. A balanced approach between the competing views of critically analytical rights based theorists and queer and feminist theorists interrogates the current international consensus in this fast moving area. The incrementalist theory whilst offering a methodology for future advances continues to be critiqued. All contributions from differing perspectives expose that even for those jurisdictions who have legalised same-sex marriage, still further and continuous work needs to be done.
Lo studio prende le mosse da una ricostruzione dell'ordinamento universitario, per poi concentrarsi sul tema delle fondazioni universitarie. Dando conto tanto di quelle istituite in forza della legge 388/2000 (e del d.P.R. 254/2001), quanto di quelle di cui al decreto-legge 112/2008 convertito in legge 133/2008 (c.d. riforma Gelmini), l'Autore ne pone in luce aspetti positivi e dubbi di incostituzionalità, giungendo a proporre nuove forme di partenariato pubblico-privato
After becoming a global leader in the field of digital regulation with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – which prompted similar laws across the globe, from California through Turkey to China – the European Union (EU) is at it again with the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. The latter will ban certain practices (e.g. face recognition for law enforcement purposes) and impose human oversight, transparency, and other requirements on providers of high-risk AI systems (e.g. automated systems used in recruitment) . When it comes to the IoT, conversely, no ‘IoT Act’ is on the horizon. This makes it harder to get a clear sense of how this socio-technological phenomenon is being regulated in Europe.
While in the future we expect to see IoT-related interventions in the fields of standard essential patents (SEPs), standards, product liability, and common European data spaces, there are already some instruments that aim to introduce tools to access otherwise locked-up smart data. In this chapter, I focus on the relevant provisions in the Open Data Directive, Data Governance Act, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, and the AI Act, and see how data access and transparency obligations are balanced against IPRs. Previous research looked at how this balance is struck under the GDPR and the proposed Data Act. Those studies shed light on the emerging conflict between an approach to data governance informed by human rights, sustainability, and social justice – whereby citizens must be given data control, which includes the right to access, reuse, and port the data – and a market-oriented neoliberal one that regards data solely as a commodity to be appropriated and monetised. This paper tests whether those findings can be generalised, and in particular whether it can be said that in the European regulation of smart data the reasons of openness are prevailing over those of private property.
The EU lawmaker should leave it to the already hypertrophic framework of IP laws to protect the proprietary interests of IoT big tech. EU data governance laws should be focused on creating the conditions for unencumbered data flow; and IP proviso are likely to be exploited to effectively sterilise the ethos of openness of the new laws. Their focus should be on providing a combination of access rights, duties, and powers, accompanied by public and private enforcement, judicial and administrative redress, and effective controls over the role of private players in rule-setting and enforcing. Too much is at stake: EU’s competitiveness, its role as digital regulation leader, and its contribution to tackling the big societal challenges of our time.
Traditional consumer protection approaches, epitomised by the Consumer Rights Directive, are focused on pre-contractual duties to inform consumers. Their benefit to IoT consumers is limited by their reflecting a text-based paradigm, whereby information must be legible. This is not fit for the IoT, where displays tend to disappear and information is provided in audio or video formats. Consumer laws are drafted on the assumption of information asymmetries in business-to-consumer contracts, but they fail to account for the power imbalances that permeate IoT transactions. These power imbalances are exacerbated by control over a wealth of user data and corresponding granular knowledge of consumers’ vulnerabilities, behaviors, and biases. This knowledge can be used to impose opaque practices on consumers; among these, IoT data appropriation by means of trade secrets plays a key role.
Therefore, an emergent concern is whether the law provides tools that effectively safeguard consumers’ interests, in particular by ensuring substantial transparency as to the actual use of their personal data. How can this can be guaranteed, and the consumer empowered in a post-interface world of profoundly imbalanced relationships? The answer cannot be found solely within the trade secrets’ regime: data protection needs to be considered.
This article focuses on the trade secrets exceptions of legitimate interest and freedom of information, and on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)’s rights to access, data portability, information, and not to be subject to solely automated decisions. We put forward that trade secrets’ exceptions and GDPR rights re-balance the interests of consumers vis-à-vis big IoT players such as Amazon. Specifically, they can positively contribute to transparency, consumers autonomy, information symmetry, data portability, and freedom of choice. We propose a holistic approach that empowers consumers by countering data appropriation, thus redistributing data control.
Please cite as Guido Noto La Diega and Cristiana Sappa, ‘The Internet of Things at the intersection of data protection and trade secrets. Non-conventional paths to counter data appropriation and empower consumers’ (2020) 3 Revue européenne de droit de la consommation / European Journal of Consumer Law 419-458
PLEASE CITE AS Guido Noto La Diega, ‘Блокчейн, смарт контракт и авторское право’ (2019) 14(3) Труды Института государства и права РАН 9
Questo contributo riguarda le banche dati in cui si ricorre all’Intelligenza Artificiale per il conseguimento, la verifica o la presentazione dei relativi contenuti (‘banche dati IA’). La domanda fondamentale cui ci si propone di rispondere è se le banche dati IA possano essere protette dal diritto d’autore e dal diritto sui generis come disciplinati dalla Direttiva sulle Banche Dati. La convinzione che il diritto sui generis non sia adatto ai dati generati in modo automatico (c.d. machine-generated data) ha portato il Parlamento Europeo a invocarne l’abolizione e la Commissione a proporre l’introduzione di un nuovo diritto per il produttore di dati non personali. La tesi principale del presente lavoro è che, contrariamente all’opinione dominante, il diritto sui generis ben si attagli all’IA e, più in generale, ai machine-generated data. Una diversa conclusione, invero, porterebbe ad eccessi proprietari per mezzo contrattuale e, in pari tempo, fornirebbe una giustificazione per l’introduzione del nuovo diritto del produttore dei dati, ultimo tassello di una deriva proprietaria che parrebbe inarrestabile. Qualora si accetti che il diritto sui generis sia sufficientemente flessibile da potersi adattare all’IA, ne seguirebbe che esso potrebbe costituire la soluzione al problema annoso della protezione delle opera dell’ingegno create dall’IA. La dottrina minoritaria, infatti, relega queste ultime al dominio pubblico perché in esse mancherebbe – e quest’autore ne conviene – quel tocco personale che connota la creatività nel diritto d’autore europeo. In questo contributo, in conclusione, si propone di sfruttare l’assenza del requisito della creatività e proteggere le opere dell’ingegno create dall’IA in modo indiretto tramite, appunto, la costituzione di una banca dati protetta dal diritto sui generis, che potrebbe alfine liberarsi dale maglie asfittiche a cui la Corte di Giustizia dell’UE l’ha sin qui condannato.
power is not distributed.
This research has been carried out with the generous support of the SLS Society of Legal Scholars.
Please cite as Guido Noto La Diega, ‘‘Can the law fix the problems of fashion? An empirical study on social norms and power imbalance in the fashion industry’ (2018) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, jpy097, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy097
This work presents ten arguments against algorithmic decision-making. These revolve around the concepts of ubiquitous discretionary interpretation, holistic intuition, algorithmic bias, the three black boxes, psychology of conformity, power of sanctions, civilising force of hypocrisy, pluralism, empathy, and technocracy.
The lack of transparency of the algorithmic decision-making process does not stem merely from the characteristics of the relevant techniques used, which can make it impossible to access the rationale of the decision. It depends also on the abuse of and overlap between intellectual property rights (the “legal black box”). In the US, nearly half a million patented inventions concern algorithms; more than 67% of the algorithm-related patents were issued over the last ten years and the trend is increasing.
To counter the increased monopolisation of algorithms by means of intellectual property rights (with trade secrets leading the way), this paper presents three legal routes that enable citizens to ‘open’ the algorithms.
First, copyright and patent exceptions, as well as trade secrets are discussed.
Second, the GDPR is critically assessed. In principle, data controllers are not allowed to use algorithms to take decisions that have legal effects on the data subject’s life or similarly significantly affect them. However, when they are allowed to do so, the data subject still has the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view, as well as to contest the decision. Additionally, the data controller shall provide meaningful information about the logic involved in the algorithmic decision.
Third, this paper critically analyses the first known case of a court using the access right under the freedom of information regime to grant an injunction to release the source code of the computer program that implements an algorithm.
Only an integrated approach – which takes into account intellectual property, data protection, and freedom of information – may provide the citizen affected by an algorithmic decision of an effective remedy as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Recommended citation: Guido Noto La Diega, Against the Dehumanisation of Decision-Making – Algorithmic Decisions at the Crossroads of Intellectual Property, Data Protection, and Freedom of Information, 9 (2018) JIPITEC 3 para 1
Le concept de publicité comportementale en ligne désigne des publicités adaptées aux goûts et aux habitudes de l’utilisateur pour qui elles s’affichent. Il s’agit d’un phénomène complexe pour différentes raisons, dont notamment une double question réglementaire : d’abord, elle génère un débat entre la nécessité d’une régulation du haut vers le bas ou d’une autorégulation; ensuite, elle confronte une approche centrée sur la protection des données personnelles aux tendances du marché. Le présent article a pour but de dissiper le postulat selon lequel les problématiques relatives à la publication comportementale en ligne sont déterminantes pour un environnement en ligne équitable. La contribution traite en particulier des nouvelles législations (Projet de Règlement ePrivacy et Règlement général sur la protection des données), qui font craindre des changements entrepreneuriaux (par exemple, la synchronisation des données Facebook/WhatsApp), et l’avènement de nouvelles technologies. Il sera démontré, en particulier, que l’intelligence artificielle comporte certes des menaces pour les consommateurs, mais aussi des opportunités propices à la mise en place de mécanismes de compliance adaptés. ’instrument «Cooperative Charter for an Integrated Approach to Online Behavioural Advertising» est présenté en annexe. Il vise à faciliter un dialogue entre les différents groupes d’intérêts et à assurer une réglementation équilibrée de la publicité comportementale en ligne.
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido Noto La Diega, ‘Some considerations on intelligent online behavioural advertising’ (2017) 66-67 Revue du droit des technologies de l'information 53-90
The full paper will be available after the embargo ends
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido NOTO LA DIEGA, The Internet of Citizens. A lawyer’s view on some technological developments in the United Kingdom and India, in Indian Journal of Law & Technology, 2017, 12(1), 53-104.
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido NOTO LA DIEGA, Software patents and the Internet of Things in Europe, the United States, and India, in European Intellectual Property Review, 2017, 39(3), 173-184.
PLEASE CITE AS: Guido NOTO LA DIEGA, Software patents and the Internet of Things in Europe, the United States, and India, in European Intellectual Property Review, 2017, 39(3), 173-184.
THE FULL ARTICLE IS STILL UNDER COPYRIGHT.
This article sheds light on the main consumer law aspects of the sharing economy through an empirical analysis of online platforms. Given the recent European consultation with the purpose of understanding (whether, or, more likely) how to regulate platforms, it is critical that consumer law considerations will be part of future regulations. For instance, it is hardly acceptable that the consumer acts in the belief that the contractual party (thus the potentially liable party) is the platform, but in reality the former disclaims any responsibility and claims to be a mere intermediary , which only seldom actually is. After a critical analysis of the Italian legislative proposal on platforms and collaborative economy, the articles moves on to illustrate the use case of Uber, the $60 billion ride-hailing platform, which is acting at the margin of existing laws, thus giving rise to protests and debate around the world. After an assessment of the Italian ruling preventing Uber to provide the UberPop service in Italy, the use case is the perfect tool to show the main reasons for concern of consumers is the lack of awareness of their rights and obligations. This articles deals with two factors of the said lack: the contractual quagmire and the corporate labyrinth. In the conclusions, it is presented an ambitious, albeit feasible, practical proposal. It is suggested the development of a mobile app that helps the consumers to assess the legal quality of the contracts they are entering in order to access the services offered through the platform. At the same time, this app, called 'Awareness by Design', should contribute to raise awareness in consumers, thus creating critical mass and making platforms understand that trust, transparency, and accountability are competitive advantages.
Cet article met en lumière les principaux aspects de droit de la consommation de l'écono-mie de partage à travers une analyse empirique des plates-formes en ligne. Compte tenu de la consultation européenne récente dans le but de comprendre (si, ou, plus probablement) la façon de réglementer les plates-formes, il est essentiel que les considérations de droit de la consommation fassent partie des futurs règlements. Par exemple, il est difficilement acceptable que le consommateur agisse dans la conviction que le cocontractant (donc la partie potentiel-lement responsable) est la plate-forme, alors qu'en réalité, celle-ci décline toute responsabilité et prétend être un simple intermédiaire. Après une analyse critique de la proposition législative italienne sur les plates-formes et de l'économie collaborative, les articles illustrent le cas d'uti-lisation de Uber, la plate-forme de covoiturage à 60 milliards de dollars, qui agit à la marge des lois en vigueur, ce qui donne lieu à des protestations et des débats autour du monde. Après une évaluation de la décision italienne empêchant Uber de fournir le service de UberPop en Ita-lie, l'examen de ce régime est l'outil idéal pour exposer que le principal motif de préoccupation des consommateurs concerne la connaissance de leurs droits et obligations. Cet article traite de deux facteurs qui sont à la base de cette difficulté : la multitude des contrats et le labyrinthe des entreprises. Dans les conclusions, il sera présenté une proposition pratique ambitieuse, mais réalisable. Il sera suggéré de développer une application mobile qui aide les consommateurs évaluer la qualité juridique des contrats qu'ils souscrivent dans le but d'accéder aux services offerts par la plate-forme. Dans le même temps, cette application, appelée « conscience by Design », devrait contribuer à sensibiliser les consommateurs, créant ainsi une masse critique et à faire comprendre aux plates-formes que la confiance, la transparence et la responsabilité sont des avantages concurrentiels.
Here is the summary of the issue http://editionslarcier.larciergroup.com/titres/134650_2_0/revue-europeenne-de-droit-de-la-consommation-european-journal-of-consumer-law-r-e-d-c-2015-2.html
‘Things’ are understood as any physical entity capable of connectivity that has a direct interface to the physical world (i.e. a sensing and/or actuating capability). From another perspective (especially product liability), Things can be seen as an inextricable mixture of hardware, software, and services. Alongside a clarification of the essentials, the six
factors of the CoT complexity are described and light is shed on the regulatory options (regulation, co-regulation, self-regulation, holistic approach, fragmentation). Focussing on the British legal systems, the
article reports on the state of the art of CoT deployment in the United Kingdom and deals with some of the main technical and legal issues
emerging from CoT. Particularly, the core will be data protection, privacy, and consumer law. Indeed, these themes are considered the most relevant by the regulators. By mastering the relevant legal issues and following the example of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea will be able to unleash its extraordinary potential as to the IoT, thus retaining its position as the smartest country in the world.
PLEASE CITE AS: G. NOTO LA DIEGA, 'Clouds of Things. Data protection and consumer law at the intersection of cloud computing and the Internet of Things in the United Kingdom', Journal of Law & Economic Regulation, 2016, 9, I, 69-93
명’이 ‘지각변동의(disruptive)’ 혁신2)으로 이어질
것이라고 이야기하는 것만큼이나 흔한 일이 되고
있다. 사물인터넷3)은 주목할 만한 현상이 되고 있
다. 그로 인한 경제적 파급효과와 사회적 가능성이
대단히 클 수 있기 때문이다.4) 그러나 사물인터넷
이 우리의 삶을 어느 정도로 바뀌게 할지 그리고
법적인 관점에서, 현행 규칙이 변경되고 새로운 규
칙이 마련되어야 하는지 여부 및 그러한 변경의 정
도를 가늠하는 것은 아직은 시기상조이다.
따라서 순진한 찬사 대신, 본 논문은 사물인터
넷, 그리고 사물인터넷과 클라우드 컴퓨팅 간의 교
차점인 소위 사물클라우드를 정의하려 한다. 기본
적인 요소들에 대한 명확한 규정과 함께, 사물클라
우드 복잡성에 관한 여섯 요소에 대해 논의하고 가
능한 규제방법들(규제, 공동규제, 자기규제, 전체론
적 접근, 세분화)을 다루도록 하겠다.
영국의 법제도에 초점을 맞추어, 영국에서의 발
달현황5)에 대해 설명하고 사물클라우드로부터 제
기되는 주요한 기술적6), 법적7) 쟁점들 몇몇을 다
루도록 한다. 규제당국이 보다 중요하게 생각하는
주제들, 즉 정보보호, 프라이버시, 소비자법을 특히
더 중점적으로 논의하겠다.
관련 법적 쟁점들을 철저히 검토하고 영국의 사
례를 참고함으로써 한국은 사물클라우드에 관한 그
특별한 잠재력을 실현시킬 수 있을 것이고8) 세계
에서 가장 스마트한 국가로서 그 지위를 유지할 수
있을 것이다.9) 드론, 무인자동차 그리고 생명공학
에 대한 규제를 완화하겠다는 박근혜 대통령의
2016년 5월 18일의 발언은 이러한 방향으로의 움
직임을 보여주고 있다.
리고 따라서 실용적인 접근법을 이용한 학제적 연구가 얼마나 결정적으로 중요한지를 이해하는 데에 도움이 된다. 여기서의 학제적 접근법이란, 비교적 복잡한 이용 사례로 부터, 사물인터넷에서 나타나는 – 보다 적절히 표현하자면, 사물인터넷과 클라우드의 교차점인 소위 사물클라우드(Clouds of Things, CoT)에서 나타나는 – 주요한 기술적⋅ 법적 쟁점4)을 다루는 접근방식을 뜻한다. 저자는 본 논문에서 사물인터넷과 사물클라우드의 개념을 명확히 하고 관련 생태계 (특히 관련 행위자들)의 복잡성에 관해 조명한 다음, eHealth에 관한 분류체계를 제안 한 뒤 사물클라우드-의료에서의 활용사례로 마무리하도록 하겠다. 구체적으로, 본 논문의 초점은 둘로 나뉜다. 먼저, 모바일 의료(mHealth)의 법적 측 면(주로 정보보호문제와 관련하여)을 탐구할 것이다. 모바일 의료 분야는 명확한 규칙 이 정립되지 않았을 뿐 아니라, eHealth의 일부라는 인식조차 거의 없는 상태이다. 그 와 함께, 사물클라우드-의료에 관한 가능한 시나리오를 이른바 용도변경(repurposing) 을 중심으로 논의한 다음 법적 책임의 문제를 검토하도록 한다. 사물클라우드가 21세기 의료서비스가 당면한 어려움을 극복할 최선의 전략으로 등 장할 수 있었던 것은 의료서비스의 탈중심화, 빅데이터 그리고 환자의 권리 강화 덕분 이었다.
FROM THE OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE:
Facebook and WhatsApp are independent companies that process their user's data on the basis of their own Terms and Conditions and Data Privacy Policies. After the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook two years ago, both parties have publicly assured that data will not be shared between them. The fact that this is now happening is not only a misleading of their users and the public, but also constitutes an infringement of national data protection law. Such an exchange is only
admissible if both companies, the one that provides the data (WhatsApp) as well as the receiving company (Facebook) have established a legal basis for doing so. Facebook, however, neither has obtained an effective approval from the WhatsApp users, nor does a legal basis for the data reception exist. It is clear that Facebook must respect German data protection law after the ECJ confirmed in its ruling from July, that national data protection laws are applicable if a company processes data in connection with a national subsidiary. Facebook is doing this through its subsidiary in Hamburg, which is responsible for the operation of the marketing business in German speaking regions.
It continues here https://www.datenschutz-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Press_Release_2016-09-27_Adminstrative_Order_Facebook_WhatsApp.pdf
These guidelines clarify that computer programs are not patentable and that if there is no novel hardware, an application for a computer-related invention will fail.
"Information Technology has gained special significance in the past two
decades. It has emerged as a vital tool for scientific development. The term “Information Technology” encompasses the whole gamut of inputting, storing, retrieving, transmitting and managing data through the use of computers and various other networks, hardware, software, electronics and
telecommunication equipment. Industry has witnessed rapid growth due to the computerization of activities which were hitherto carried out manually or mechanically. The advent of the internet and the World Wide Web (www) coupled with the exponential growth of processing and storage power has led to capabilities previously unheard of. The core elements in the application of Information Technology are computers and their peripherals. Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) comprises inventions which involve the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and include such inventions having one or more features of which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer programme or programmes..."