Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Iuris Dictio

Miscelánea

Núm. 22 (2018)

Online privacy regulation in a decentralized, unbounded context: Internet Governance and multi-stake-holder initiatives as regulatory mechanisms

DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v22i22.1063
Submitted
March 6, 2018
Published
2018-12-13

Abstract

The present paper analyzes the right to privacy in the context of the Internet. The multi-stake- holder initiatives are an alternative that has already provided a regulatory structure on various aspects of the Internet, be it security, free flow of information or online privacy. Although there are elements that make it not a total solution, this paper analyzes some reasons why online privacy should be regulated by mechanisms of Internet Governance and by entities that do not respond only to governments or only to private firms. In this work, a general look at this alternative is given, without neglecting other approaches that should be applied to the topic of online privacy.

viewed = 779 times

References

  1. Alves, S. (2014). Internet Governance: fte Internet Balkanization Fragmentation. Draft 20th ITS Biennial Conference, 1-15.
  2. Aquisti, A. and Brandimarte, L. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 30, 509-514.
  3. Benkler, Y. (2013). Practical Anarchism: Peer Mutualism, Market Power, and the Fallible State. Politics and Society, 41(2), 213-215.
  4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Welth of Networks. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Calo, R. (2015). Privacy and Markets: A Love Story. Notre Dame Law Review, 91, 649-690.
  5. Cohen, J. (2013). What Privacy is for. Harvard Law Review, 126, 649-690.
  6. Cooper, M. (2013). Why growing up is hard to do: institutional challenges for internet governance in the "quarter-life crisis" of the digital revolution. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 11 (1), 45-113.
  7. DeCew, J. (2015). Privacy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  8. Dotty, N. and Mulligan, D. (2013). Internet Multistakeholder processes and Techno-Policy Standards: Initial Reflections on Privacy at the World Wide Web Consortium. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 11 (1), 135-184.
  9. Fransen, L. (2012, January). Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Voluntary Programme Interactions: Legitimation Politics in the Institutional Design of Corporate Social Responsibility. Socio-Economic Review, 10 (1) (1), 163-192.
  10. Kruner, C., Cate, F., Millard, C. and Svantesson, D. (2015). Editorial: Internet Balkanization gathers pace: is privacy the real driver? International Data Privacy Law 5 (1), 1-2.
  11. Lapenta G. H. (2013). Background paper, Privacy as Innovation III.
  12. Manyka, J. and Roxburgh, C. (2001). The great transformer: The impact of the Internet on economic growth and prosperity. San Francisco: McKinsey Global Institute.
  13. Mary, C. and Culnan, M. J. (2000). Protecting Privacy Online: Is Self-Regulation Working? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing , 19 (1), 20-26.
  14. Nye, J. S. (2014). fte Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities (pp. 4-20).
  15. Global Commission on the Internet Governance. London: CIGI.
  16. Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
  17. Rainie, L. and Duggan, M. (2016). Privacy and Information Sharing. Pew Research Center (Dec.), 1-45.
  18. Solove, D. J. (2006). A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154, 477-570.
  19. Tene, O. and Hughes, T. (2014). fte Promise and Shortcomings of Privacy Multistakeholder Policymaking: a Case Study. Maine Law Review , 437-465.
  20. The Human Rights Council. (2018). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.
  21. The London Schoolof Economicsand Political Science(2014). Unfield Field: fte"Splinternet". Media Policy Project Blog.
  22. The World Bank Group. (2016). Internet users per 100 people. The World Bank Indicators.
  23. WGIG. (2005). Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. Chateau de Bossey.
  24. World Wide Web Consortium (2013). Tracking Protection Working Group. W3C.
  25. Articles and News:
  26. A&E Television Networks. (2016). The Invention of the Internet. History.
  27. Balkan, A. (2015). Apple vs Google on privacy: a tale of absolute competitive advantage.
  28. Esquire. (2008). Vint Cerf: What I"™ve Learned. Esquire Entertainment Interviews.
  29. Freepress. (2016). Net Neutrality: What you need to know now, Free Press Action Fund.
  30. Gibbs, S. (2015). Samsung"™s voice-recording smart TVs breach privacy law, campaigners clalim. The Guardian.
  31. Grassegger, H. (2014, February 9). States are emerging from the Web. NZZ Mediengruppe.
  32. Gunaratna, S. (2016). fte Snowden effect: Silicon Valley vs. the government. CBS NEWS.
  33. Hasselbalch Lapenta, G. (2013). Privacy is the new business model. Mediamocracy.
  34. Kaspersen, A. (2015, July 21). Can you have both security and privacy in the internet age? World Economic Forum Global Governance.
  35. Love, D. (2013, June 29). Business Insider. Tech Insider.
  36. Lynley, M. (2018, April 13). Techcrunch.
  37. Marsan, C. (2015). "New IAB chair fears Internet balkanization", Network World.
  38. Maurer, T. and Morgus, R. (2014, February 19). Slate. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from Stop Calling Decentralization fot he Internet "Balkanization".
  39. Meinrath, S. (2013, October 11). fte Future of the Internet: Balkanization and Borders. Time.
  40. Pew Research Center (2016). Number, Facts and Trends Shaping your World.
  41. RAND Corporation. (2000). Where Will the Information Revolution Lead? Transcendental Destination.
  42. Rouse, M. (2016). Internet technologies. Tech Target.
  43. Schaake, M. (2016). fte World Post. The Huffington Post.
  44. Sentences:
  45. U.S Supreme Court (1973). Roe v Wade 410 US 113. Jan. 22, 1973.