'Notice and staydown' and social media: amending Article 13 of the Proposed Directive on Copyright

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This paper critically assesses the compatibility of content recognition and filtering technology or so-called notice and staydown approach with the right of social network platforms and users to a fair trial, privacy and freedom of expression under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Article 13 of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright, the case-law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Court and academic literature. It argues that the adoption of content recognition and filtering technology could pose a threat to social network platforms and user human rights. It considers the compliance of ‘notice and staydown’ with the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether a ‘notice and staydown’ approach is, firstly, ‘in accordance with the law’, secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims included in Article 8(2) and 10(2) ECHR and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. It concludes that ‘notice and staydown’ could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR test as well as the ECtHR principle of equality of arms, thereby violating the rights of social network platforms and users under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.Peer reviewe

BILETA Response to IPO consultation to changes to penalties for online copyright infringement

Felipe Romero-Moreno, & James G H Griffin, 'BILETA Response to the UK IPO Consultation on Changes to Penalties for Online Copyright Infringement', August 2015.This is a collaborative submission from a group of academics based in the UK with expertise in Information technology law and related areas. The preparation of the response has been funded by the British and Irish Law Education Law and Technology Association (BILETA http://www.bileta.ac.uk/Home/). This response has been prepared by Dr. Felipe Romero Moreno (University of Hertfordshire) and Dr. James Griffin (University of Exeter). It has been approved by the Executive of BILETA and is therefore submitted on behalf of BILETASubmitted Versio

Unblocking the Digital Economy Act 2010 : human rights issues in the UK

This is the accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Review of Law, Computers and Technology on 21 March 2013. The version of record [Romero-Moreno, F. (2013) ‘Unblocking the Digital Economy Act 2010, human rights issues in the UK’, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 27(1-2): 18-45, first published on line March 21, 2013] is available online via doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2013.764149Through an example of a study utilizing the case-law research method, this paper critically assesses whether taking into account both the findings of Mr La Rue (the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights) as well as some Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) case-law, website blocking could be implemented in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, with Article 10. Drawing upon, inter alia, Ofcom site blocking review, sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA), section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), and some independent expert evidence, this paper's major argument is that in view of the CJEU SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog, the UK government's decision to repeal the website blocking provisions of the DEA appears appropriate. The paper examines the findings of Fox v BT. It contrasts such findings with the CJEU's case-law and in light of the incompatibility of any website blocking measure with the cumulative three-part test set out in the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights discusses a number of implications. It concludes that given that the implementation of content blocking systems, such as Cleanfeed is likely to result in general monitoring being carried out; the UK government could possibly be in breach of EU law, namely, Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31.Peer reviewe

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR

Moreno, F., (2014), 'The Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010; Subscriber monitor and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. Paper presented at the British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association (Bileta) 29th Annual Conference 2014, "Legal Regulation and Education: Doing the Right Thing?". University of East Anglia, 14-16th April 2014.Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) obligation to notify subscribers of Copyright Infringement Reports (CIRs) (Section 3 of the DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It draws on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom’s Initial Obligations Code (the Code), the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, and the DEA judicial review appeal decision, i.e., BT Plc and Talk Talk Telecom Group Plc v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others. This paper focuses on the three-parts of the Strasbourg Court’s cumulative test, in an effort to determine whether Section 3 of the DEA: firstly, is ‘in accordance with the law’; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’, and as to whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. The paper provides an in-depth examination of the three-parts of the ECtHR’s cumulative test. It contrasts parts one, two and three of the ECtHR’s test with the Code’s provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 3 of the DEA with Article 8 of the ECHR. It concludes that Section 3 of the DEA must be specifically targeted to serious online copyright infringement cases of ‘commercial scale’. The contrary rule would mean that it neither would be ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary’ or ‘proportionate’; that is to say, it would infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR’s test, thus violating subscribers’ Article 8 ECHR rights under the Convention.Peer reviewedDownloa

The Digital Economy Act 2010: subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR

This is the accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Review of Law on 26 April 2016, available online at doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2016.1176320. Under embargo. Embargo end date: 26 October 2018.This paper critically assesses the compatibility of s3 Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Ofcom’s Initial Obligations and two UK cases, namely: British Telecommunications Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills,1 and R (British Telecommunications plc and TalkTalk Telecom Group plc) v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others.2 It argues that the implementation of this obligation allows directed surveillance of subscribers’ activities without legal authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It also analyses compliance with the Strasbourg Court’s three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether s3 of the DEA is, firstly, ‘in accordance with the law’; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. It concludes that unless the implementation of s3 of the DEA required the involvement of State authorities and was specifically targeted at serious, commercial scale online copyright infringement cases it could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR’s test, thereby violating subscribers’ Article 8 ECHR rights.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

AI facial recognition and biometric detection: balancing consumer rights and corporate interests

© 2021 IEEE. This is the accepted manuscript version of a conference proceeding which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCST49569.2021.9717403The purpose of this study is two-fold. Firstly, to critically assess the extent to which corporate actors can lawfully use artificial intelligence (AI) technology for real-time facial recognition biometric detection. Secondly, to suggest and appraise some procedural safeguards to make the use of these systems by private actors compatible with consumers' right to protection of their personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study seeks to fill an existing gap in the literature. It concludes that unless, the three variables suggested in the study are considered, that is, ‘whether’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ corporate actors can legally use AI for real-time facial recognition biometric detection, the use of this technology will violate consumers' data protection rights.Final Accepted Versio

BILETA Response to Review of the Computer Misuse Act 1990

© Crown copyright 2023.Given its expertise in Information Technology Law, the British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee inquiry about Governance of artificial intelligence (AI). BILETA was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop, and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students, and the public. BILETA also promotes the use of and research into technology at all stages of education

AI White Paper Consultation Response

This paper is prepared on behalf of the British Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) by Dr Megan Blakely, Dr Aysem Diker Vanberg, Dr Edina Harbinja and Dr Felipe Romero – Moreno. The present AI White Paper inquiry raises technological, economic and legal challenges that the members of (BILETA) explore in their research. As such, this consultation response adds to the public discourse and the inquiry on the future of AI regulation in the UK

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

This is the accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Review of Law, Computers and Technology on 10 January 2014. The version of record [Romero-Moreno, F. (2014) Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR', International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 28(1): 81-97, first published on line January 10, 2014] is available online via doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2013.869912Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.Peer reviewe

Kinetic study of bioethanol production from agroindustrial residues of ripe banana peel

Esta investigación aborda la aplicación de un compuesto de polietilenglicol (PEG) de masa molecular 1500, cuyo objetivo es degradar los compuestos inhibidores presentes durante la hidrólisis enzimática de la cáscara de banano maduro de la variedad Cavendish. Asimismo, se realizaron tres experimentos al 60% de cáscara de banano molida, en los que se adicionó PEG a diferentes concentraciones: 0,01; 0,02; 0,03 g/g biomasa. La hidrólisis enzimática se realizó con conidios del hongo Trichoderma viride y su posterior fermentación alcohólica fue con levadura activa seca comercial de Saccharomyces cerevisiae, que previamente fue activada. El mejor resultado corresponde al experimento PEG3 (0,03 g/g biomasa), con el que se obtuvo un mayor incremento de azúcares reductores. Además, se encontraron diferencias significativas (p<0,5) para la glucosa obtenida entre los tres tratamientos hidrolíticos. Los resultados demuestran que, a partir de los residuos lignocelulósicos de la cáscara de banano maduro, se puede obtener bioetanol, cuyo rendimiento obtenido de 7% v/v se aproxima a otros reportados en el mismo campo de estudio. Finalmente, el análisis de los costos variables del pretratamiento, aplicado a la cáscara de banano en la producción de etanol obtenido, permite estimar que el método planteado en este artículo es menos costoso comparado con los demás procedimientos, demuestra un mayor rendimiento de bioetanol y se obtiene en menor tiempo.This research addresses the application of compound polyethylene glycol (PEG) of molecular weight 1500, whose objective is to degrade the inhibiting compounds present during the enzymatic hydrolysis of Cavendish variety ripe banana peels. Likewise, three experiments were conducted on 60% ground banana peel, to which PEG was added at different concentrations: 0.01; 0.02; and 0.03 g/g biomass. The enzymatic hydrolysis was performed with conidia of the Trichoderma viride fungus and its subsequent alcoholic fermentation with commercial active dry yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which was previously activated. The best result corresponds to the PEG3 experiment (0.03 g/g biomass), with which a greater increase of reducing sugars was obtained. In addition, significant differences were found (p<0.5) in the glucose obtained among the three hydrolytic treatments. The results show that bioethanol can be obtained from the lignocellulosic residues of ripe banana peel, whose 7% v/v yield obtained is close to others reported in the same field of study. Finally, the analysis of the variable costs of the pretreatment, applied to the banana peel for the production of the ethanol obtained, makes it possible to estimate that the method proposed in this article is less expensive compared to other procedures, demonstrating a higher bioethanol yield obtained in less time