Data-driven personalisation and the law - a primer: collective interests engaged by personalisation in markets, politics and law

Interdisciplinary Workshop on â��Data-Driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and Law' on 28 June 2019Southampton Law School will be hosting an interdisciplinary workshop on the topic of â��Data-Driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and Law' on Friday 28 June 2019, which will explore the pervasive and growing phenomenon of â��personalisationâ�� â�� from behavioural advertising in commerce and micro-targeting in politics, to personalised pricing and contracting and predictive policing and recruitment. This is a huge area which touches upon many legal disciplines as well as social science concerns and, of course, computer science and mathematics. Within law, it goes well beyond data protection law, raising questions for criminal law, consumer protection, competition and IP law, tort law, administrative law, human rights and anti-discrimination law, law and economics as well as legal and constitutional theory. Weâ��ve written a position paper, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/428082/1/Data_Driven_Personalisation_and_the_Law_A_Primer.pdf which is designed to give focus and structure to a workshop that we expect will be strongly interdisciplinary, creative, thought-provoking and entertaining. We like to hear your thoughts! Call for papers! Should you be interested in disagreeing, elaborating, confirming, contradicting, dismissing or just reflecting on anything in the paper and present those ideas at the workshop, send us an abstract by Friday 5 April 2019 (Ms Clare Brady [email protected] ). We aim to publish an edited popular law/social science book with the most compelling contributions after the workshop.Prof Uta Kohl, Prof James Davey, Dr Jacob Eisler<br/

The Future of Online Property... and Ms Atamirzayeva

The Future of Online Property... and Ms Atamirzayev

A global analysis of Y-chromosomal haplotype diversity for 23 STR loci

In a worldwide collaborative effort, 19,630 Y-chromosomes were sampled from 129 different populations in 51 countries. These chromosomes were typed for 23 short-tandem repeat (STR) loci (DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS385ab, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS448, DYS456, DYS458, DYS635, GATAH4, DYS481, DYS533, DYS549, DYS570, DYS576, and DYS643) and using the PowerPlex Y23 System (PPY23, Promega Corporation, Madison, WI). Locus-specific allelic spectra of these markers were determined and a consistently high level of allelic diversity was observed. A considerable number of null, duplicate and off-ladder alleles were revealed. Standard single-locus and haplotype-based parameters were calculated and compared between subsets of Y-STR markers established for forensic casework. The PPY23 marker set provides substantially stronger discriminatory power than other available kits but at the same time reveals the same general patterns of population structure as other marker sets. A strong correlation was observed between the number of Y-STRs included in a marker set and some of the forensic parameters under study. Interestingly a weak but consistent trend toward smaller genetic distances resulting from larger numbers of markers became apparent.Peer reviewe

Islamophobia, 'Gross Offensiveness' and the Internet

This article argues that restrictions on expression based on ‘gross offensiveness’ or similar public morality notions embedded in speech offences are not and cannot be politically neutral and be evenly applied to political speech, no matter who is the author. Such concepts draw on a majoritarian perspective purporting to be reflective of unified base values of the ‘national community’. The article explores why such concepts of unacceptable speech are a poor fit for a deeply heterogeneous community, and all the more so on the internet, where those who engage in public discourse are even more numerous and more diverse in ethnic, cultural, political and social terms. Set against such a diverse speech landscape the prohibition of ‘gross offensiveness’, or what are considered the outer boundaries of acceptability, is repressive of minorities and of challenges to conventional opinions and existing power dynamics, and is liable to reinforce the very bigotry it seeks to relieve