Revisiting network neutrality

The paper discusses the topical subject of network neutrality, from a US and European legal perspective. The article will begin by first defining network neutrality before addressing the underpinning technology and will then compare the legal approaches adopted by Europe and the US. In Europe, there is an existing electronic communications regulatory framework which can be used to address the network neutrality problem rendering any further legislation unnecessary and perhaps, detrimental to the current framework. In the US, however, the main concern arising is a potential for a 'fragmented' internet, which leads to our conclusion that network neutrality legislation is necessary on multiple levels. The article will conclude that the US' stance on network neutrality legislation will cause a seismic shift in the way we view technology and the way that networks are accessed and utilised

Data protection: the challenges facing social networking

The popularity of social networking sites has increased dramatically over the past decade. A recent report indicated that thirty-eight percent of online users have a social networking profile. Many of these social networking site users (SNS users) post or provide personal information over the internet every day. According to the latest OfCom study, the average adult SNS user has profiles on 1.6 sites and most check their profiles at least once every other day. However, the recent rise in social networking activity has opened the door to the misuse and abuse of personal information through identity theft, cyber stalking, and undesirable screenings by prospective employers. Behavioral advertising programs have also misused personal information available on social networking sites. Society is now facing an important question: what level of privacy should be expected and required within the social networking environment

Forensic Gait Analysis and Recognition:Standards of Evidence Admissibility

Gait is one biological characteristic which has attracted strong research interest due to its potential use in human identification. Although almost two decades have passed since a forensic gait expert has testified to the identity of a perpetrator in court, the methods remain insufficiently robust, considering the recent paradigm shift witnessed in the forensic science community regarding quality of evidence. In contrast, technological advancements have taken the lead, and research into automated gait recognition has greatly surpassed forensic gait analysis in terms of the size of acquired datasets and demographic variability of participants, tested variables, and statistical evaluation of results. Despite these advantages, gait recognition presents with different problems which are yet to be resolved. Therefore, courts should treat gait evidence with caution, as they should any other form of evidence originating from disciplines without fully established codes of practice, error rates, and demonstrable applications in forensic scenarios