Regulating Disruption: Blockchain, GDPR, and Questions of Data Sovereignty

The article discusses the nature of law in cyberspace. Topics discussed include distinction between regulation as infringement of private autonomy and regulation as a collaborative enterprise; blockchain regulatory conundrum; and neoliberal market-complementing regulation. Also being discussed is the regulation for economic efficiency and consumer choice

The First Amendment and Cyberspace: The Clinton Years

Both in terms of speech regulation and in terms of providing raw material for the legal controversies that shape the law of the First Amendment, the legacy of Pres Clinton\u27s Administration is considerable, and nowhere more than in cyberspace. The most visible example of the Clinton Administration\u27s role in cyberspeech regulation are the Communications Decency Act, which was struck down by unanimous vote of the Supreme Court in 1997, and the Child Online Protection Act, which is now before the courts

Legal aspects of security in cyberspace

Cyber is a relatively new, virtual space, where intensive communication, business, banking, criminal, and military activities are in progress. Those activities create effects that national legal systems and the international legal order have never faced before. These features and capabilities of cyberspace open a number of substantive legal and security issues and dilemmas. Regulation of cyberspace with legal norms is one of the biggest challenges that modern states face. There is a widespread debate in various areas of law regarding the applicability of existing legal rules and standards in cyber space. At the same time, efforts to generate new rules specific to cyber space are being made, where existing rules cannot be properly applied. For certain topics opinions are divided and some issues remain open. This paper provides an analysis of the legal aspects of the functioning in cyberspace, as well as a review of the process of normative regulation in this space, with a special focus on European legal regulation. The paper emphasizes the spheres of law which, according to the authors’ opinion, are most affected by the implications of cyber activities, and consequently show the most significant step forward in terms of creating a legal framework that forms the basis for security in cyberspace

Law, borders and the territorialisation of cyberspace

This article explores the relationship between law and more specifically international law with territory and borders and how this relationship manifests itself in cyberspace. It claims that it manifests itself through two processes: a process of territorialisation of cyberspace that is, the application of territorial notions of international law to persons, activities, and objects existing or operating in or through cyberspace and, secondly, in States asserting their sovereignty in cyberspace by creating national cyberspace zones. All in all, its main claim is that borders are still relevant in the legal regulation of cyberspace

ASPEK HUKUM CYBERBULLYING DI KALANGAN REMAJA DALAM PERSPEKTIF UNDANG-UNDANG INFORMASI DAN TRANSAKSI ELEKTRONIK

The world of today's youth cannot be separated from the internet. In addition to using the internet for learning needs, teenagers also use the internet to interact in cyberspace through social media. Although it provides many benefits, social media in cyberspace also has the potential to cause negative impacts in the form of cyberbullying, namely mental violence by a person or group of people against another person or group of people in cyberspace so that the victim feels mistreated. According to Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions (UU ITE), cyberbullying is categorized as a crime and has legal sanctions. The purpose of the science and technology activity for the community "Legal Aspects of Cyberbullying Among Adolescents in the Perspective of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions" is to provide understanding to students at the Purwokerto Muhammadiyah Women's Orphanage about cyberbullying. and its regulation in the ITE Law so that female students can use social media on the internet wisely

The Failure of the Rule of Law in Cyberspace: Reorienting the Normative Debate on Borders and Territorial Sovereignty

The ultimate goal of this article is to suggest a different perspective on the issue of extraterritorial regulation in cyberspace. Between 1996 and 2002, over the course of several law review articles, professors David R. Johnson, David Post, and Jack L. Goldsmith engaged in a highly influential debate addressing the significance and legitimacy of physical, geographically-defined borders and territorial sovereignty in the regulation of cyberspace. At bottom, it was a contest between internal or indigenous regulation and the imposition of existing external regimes. At its heart lay two overarching areas of disagreement: First, descriptively, whether and to what extent the architecture of the Internet is borderless or boundary-destroying, so as to be resistant to regulatory regimes grounded in territorial authority; and second, normatively, whether and to what extent a nation may legitimately exercise its regulatory power extraterritorially, particularly in the context of online activity. Initially, this seemed a robust debate. But it narrowed predictably. The descriptive issue moved from platitudes of the Internet\u27s inherent nature to a contest of choices and predicted technological advancement. The normative question became fundamentally a disagreement about the origins and limits of sovereign power, particularly as related to the regulation of extraterritorial activities having local effects, as well as the spillover effects of such regulation. Related to this fundamental question, and particularly relevant here, the participants ultimately disagreed as to the legitimizing effect of jurisdictional and choice-of-law principles; i.e., whether these jurisprudential mechanisms for resolving regulatory-overlap disputes adequately limit and resolve multiple, simultaneous, and competing claims of unilateral, extraterritorial regulatory power. This pushed the discussion back to the descriptive; to questions of functional identity, scale, effects, and (somewhat tangentially) consent. And here, it seemed to wither. This article acknowledges these debates and their importance, but suggests that by framing the argument as they did, their authors - particularly Johnson and Post - were pressed to untenable assertions that fatally undermined their position. Seeking to avoid a similar fate, here the underlying issues are approached from a slightly different perspective. Jurisdictional and choice-of-law principles are recognized, fundamentally, as expressions of the rule of law; devices by which conformity to the rule of law is to be actualized. But the term the rule of law has recently become so commonplace and pedestrian that its precise connection to these principles may be lost. Indeed, at times in their debate, professors Johnson, Post, and Goldsmith seem to talk around the rule-of-law concept, failing to step back to adequately examine the purposes, values, and virtues of law from which their arguments might ultimately flow. My intent is to reestablish this link through consideration of the more fundamental question; whether the governance of cyberspace by traditional laws, imposed by territorially-based sovereigns, conforms to the rule of law. I conclude that the imposition of territorially-based regulatory regimes in the governance of cyberspace fails to conform to the rule of law. But this is not the end of the inquiry. For if the rule of law fails in cyberspace, what then? Must we reform or recreate our regulatory system, or is conformity with the rule of law a less important virtue of legal systems than popular rhetoric might suggest? I begin in Section I by outlining the normative debate on the governance of cyberspace, borders and territorial sovereignty, focusing on the Johnson-Post-Goldsmith debate. I then seek to identify weaknesses in this approach. This provides a foundation upon which to reframe the debate in Section II, moving from a focus on the validity of sovereign power and its limits, to the relationship between individual autonomy and the purposes, values and virtues of law. Here, the central question is whether the governance of cyberspace by traditional sovereign legal systems conforms to the rule of law. Answering this question in the negative, Section III asks simply, what then? Is conformity to the rule of law a prerequisite of authority or simply one value among many, to be weighed against other values served by law and promoted, but without such exaggerated importance that it devalues other laudable social goals

The Failure of the Rule of Law in Cyberspace: Reorienting the Normative Debate on Borders and Territorial Sovereignty

The ultimate goal of this article is to suggest a different perspective on the issue of extraterritorial regulation in cyberspace. Between 1996 and 2002, over the course of several law review articles, professors David R. Johnson, David Post, and Jack L. Goldsmith engaged in a highly influential debate addressing the significance and legitimacy of physical, geographically-defined borders and territorial sovereignty in the regulation of cyberspace. At bottom, it was a contest between internal or indigenous regulation and the imposition of existing external regimes. At its heart lay two overarching areas of disagreement: First, descriptively, whether and to what extent the architecture of the Internet is borderless or boundary-destroying, so as to be resistant to regulatory regimes grounded in territorial authority; and second, normatively, whether and to what extent a nation may legitimately exercise its regulatory power extraterritorially, particularly in the context of online activity. Initially, this seemed a robust debate. But it narrowed predictably. The descriptive issue moved from platitudes of the Internet\u27s inherent nature to a contest of choices and predicted technological advancement. The normative question became fundamentally a disagreement about the origins and limits of sovereign power, particularly as related to the regulation of extraterritorial activities having local effects, as well as the spillover effects of such regulation. Related to this fundamental question, and particularly relevant here, the participants ultimately disagreed as to the legitimizing effect of jurisdictional and choice-of-law principles; i.e., whether these jurisprudential mechanisms for resolving regulatory-overlap disputes adequately limit and resolve multiple, simultaneous, and competing claims of unilateral, extraterritorial regulatory power. This pushed the discussion back to the descriptive; to questions of functional identity, scale, effects, and (somewhat tangentially) consent. And here, it seemed to wither. This article acknowledges these debates and their importance, but suggests that by framing the argument as they did, their authors - particularly Johnson and Post - were pressed to untenable assertions that fatally undermined their position. Seeking to avoid a similar fate, here the underlying issues are approached from a slightly different perspective. Jurisdictional and choice-of-law principles are recognized, fundamentally, as expressions of the rule of law; devices by which conformity to the rule of law is to be actualized. But the term the rule of law has recently become so commonplace and pedestrian that its precise connection to these principles may be lost. Indeed, at times in their debate, professors Johnson, Post, and Goldsmith seem to talk around the rule-of-law concept, failing to step back to adequately examine the purposes, values, and virtues of law from which their arguments might ultimately flow. My intent is to reestablish this link through consideration of the more fundamental question; whether the governance of cyberspace by traditional laws, imposed by territorially-based sovereigns, conforms to the rule of law. I conclude that the imposition of territorially-based regulatory regimes in the governance of cyberspace fails to conform to the rule of law. But this is not the end of the inquiry. For if the rule of law fails in cyberspace, what then? Must we reform or recreate our regulatory system, or is conformity with the rule of law a less important virtue of legal systems than popular rhetoric might suggest? I begin in Section I by outlining the normative debate on the governance of cyberspace, borders and territorial sovereignty, focusing on the Johnson-Post-Goldsmith debate. I then seek to identify weaknesses in this approach. This provides a foundation upon which to reframe the debate in Section II, moving from a focus on the validity of sovereign power and its limits, to the relationship between individual autonomy and the purposes, values and virtues of law. Here, the central question is whether the governance of cyberspace by traditional sovereign legal systems conforms to the rule of law. Answering this question in the negative, Section III asks simply, what then? Is conformity to the rule of law a prerequisite of authority or simply one value among many, to be weighed against other values served by law and promoted, but without such exaggerated importance that it devalues other laudable social goals

The Paradox of Indonesia Cyberspace Policy and Cooperation: Neoclassical Realism Perspective

Cyberspace is a new threat to state security, especially in Indonesia. The increase of internet users in Indonesia is followed by several policies Jakarta takes to adapt to the fast pace of cyberspace challenges. To manage cyberspace in Indonesia, the government has developed ITE Law to regulate Indonesia’s cyberspace and prevent threats coming from within. Moreover, realizing cyberspace offers many opportunities. The government also cooperates with other actors like ASEAN to formulate ASEAN Digital Masterplan to enhance cyberspace contribution toward economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is a contradiction between ITE Law, especially the Regulation of the Minister of Communication and Informatics No. 5 of 2020, and the cyberspace cooperation that the government tries to impose. These phenomena raise the question of why the Indonesian government takes contradiction policy on cyberspace between domestic and international levels. This research examined the reason behind the paradoxical policy of the Indonesian government’s ITE Law and the ASEAN Digital Masterplan regarding cyberspace policy, especially from 2016 to 2021. A qualitative method was employed to achieve the objective, with disciplined configurative reports and government documents regarding its cyber policy as the data. The data were analyzed using the theory of neoclassical realism to identify the Indonesian government’s cyberspace policy behavior on domestic and international levels. This paradoxical situation between the domestic and international levels of the Indonesian government’s cyberspace policy was created by how the Indonesian government identified threats. The Indonesian government still faced instability at the domestic level to identify the category of threats toward the regime due to the inheritance of the authoritarian regime government model it experienced before. The opposite response at the international level occurred because the socialization and institutionalization in the region have created strategic culture. Accordingly, the strategic culture of cyberspace has restricted the Indonesian government from applying the same idea at the domestic level. The Indonesian government should adapt the popular strategic culture at the international level to ensure prestige

The Indonesian Electronic Information and Transactions Within Indonesia’s Broader Legal Regime: Urgency for Amendment?

Cyberspace is the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures such as the internet, telecommunications networks, and computer systems. Meanwhile, Indonesia’s Law Number 11 of 2008 and its amendment through Indonesian Law Number 19 of 2016 governing cyberspace have been viewed to contradict and infringe other areas of law, such as protection of press or freedom of expression. Hence, this study seeks to identify the controversies and problems regarding the law deemed urgent for amendment. Further, this study creates recommendations so the government may amend electronic information policy more fairly and efficiently. This study uses a judicial normative and comparative approach. This research tries to analyze the existing regulations and the implementation and compare Indonesia’s cyberspace regulation with other States’. This study finds that Articles 27(3) and 28(2) of the law criminalize defamation and hate speech in an overly broad manner and that Article 40(2)(b) allows the government to exercise problematic censorship. As a result, they have infringed the freedom of the press and general freedom of expression in practice. In response to this, this study compares similar provisions from other States and recommends amendment the articles to become narrower and more clearly defined