«LAW OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE» AND ITS PLACE IN THE SYSTEM OF INFORMATION LAW

The paper is devoted to contemporary problems of legal support for the development, introduction and use of artificial intelligence and robotics systems as one of the vectors of the development of Russian information law. The purpose of the study is to The aim of the study is to gain scientific insight into the place of a set of legal norms governing relations associated with this digital technology in the system of modern Russian law. In the course of the study, a group of interrelated methods is used, the choice of which is determined by the subject of scientific work, including system analysis, generalization, and the formal-logical method. As a result of the study, it is concluded that at present there are objective conditions and the need to establish a complex legal institution – the law of artificial intelligence in the information law system. The paper substantiates the complex nature of this institution and notes that the law of artificial intelligence, being a complex formation, is associated with a group of legal institutions of information law – institutions of personal data, information of limited access, Internet law, identification, responsibility in the information sphere and others.

Cuba internet law to complicate expressions of dissent

Headline CUBA: Media law may complicate expressions of dissent

Digitizing The Land of Genghis Khan: Reforming Mongolia’s Internet Law to Achieve Growth in E-Commerce

In the digital age, the E-signature has replaced the handwritten signature. Since 1995, there have been three generations of E-signature law: the first mandated use of the digital signature, the second recognized the legal validity of all types of E-signatures, and the third recognizes all types of E-signatures, but gives preferred status to the digital signature. Mongolia’s Electronic Signature Law (ESL) is third-generation; it recognizes all types of E-signatures but favors the use of the digital signature. Accreditation requirements are specified for Certification Service Providers (CSP), the issuers of certificates and verifiers to third parties that a digital signature is that of a specific subscriber. The CSP is responsible for maintaining the security of information that it receives from its subscribers. The CSP must inform the subscriber of any limitations on the use of the certificate. If a CSP issues a certificate, it must meet stringent security requirements which can only be achieved with a digital signature. CSPs must maintain a publicly accessible repository of certificates and the public keys which relying third parties can use to decrypt a subscriber’s message. A CSP may incur legal liability for publishing a certificate with inaccurate information or for not issuing a private key to the subscriber corresponding to the public key in the repository. The ESL recognizes the legal validity of certificates issued by CSPs in foreign countries. The author recommends reformation of Mongolia’s E-commerce law by adding: (1) consumer protections for E-commerce participants; (2) several new computer crimes; (3) information technology courts; (4) mandatory E-government; and (5) explicit long-arm jurisdiction.

Iran’s new internet law has economic and social risks

Headline IRAN: New internet law has economic and social risks

Digital law: The pursuit of certainty

The article deals with the development o digital law as an instrument for regulating the digital economy. It is proved that, within the academic environment, the concept of “Internet law” is still more well-established than the concept of “digital law”. It is in this manner that the legal sphere responds to the challenges of the digital revolution and reflects the digital economy. The debate as to whether “Internet law” can be considered either as a separate branch of law or as a branch of legislation has not yet subsided. Nevertheless, “Internet law” is undoubtedly an independent academic discipline, textbooks on which are published in Russia. However, Russia needs to develop a digital economy; this is why the national project “Digital Economy of the Russian Federation” was adopted in 2018, regulatory support for which forms the basis of digital law in Russia. At the same time, the extensive experience of digital economy regulation in both its neighbouring countries and beyond is taken into account. Especially attractive is the national strategic model, which assumes the most rapid procedure for adopting changes and consequently adapting digital legislation, is aimed at the long-term perspective, and lets popular opinion — as well as the opinions of public organizations, the business community, and government representatives — be taken into account. In addition to foreign experience in regulating the digital economy, we should also use the best practices of domestic and foreign legal science.

Transnational Internet Law

The greatest, and certainly to a Westphalian nation-state-centered universe most revolutionary, challenge for regulation is the increasing co-operation between national, regional, and international networks of regulators, to regulate the internet. Reidenberg coined the term “lex informatica” to explain its transnational legal nature, based on Berman and Kaufman’s analysis of mediaeval lex mercatoria, rather than Jessup’s transnational law. This chapter briefly considers the technical standards that permit inter-networking and thus the internet, then examines how standards—including commercial and legal standards—have created a transnational lex informatica. The chapter then focuses on two phenomena of the transnational internet law evolution. The first is governance by contract for all commercial transactions, even those that are ostensibly free of monetary value, in which the contractors are trading private information for advertising revenue. The second is the “open internet,” laws protecting some aspects of network neutrality.

Contextualizing sovereignty: A critical review of competing explanations of the Internet governance in the (so-called) Russian case

In reference to Russia, the concept of “Internet sovereignty” is commonly used to evoke the state’s efforts to tighten its control over the Internet in order to consolidate a non-democratic political regime. Many scholars have discussed Russia’s “sovereign Internet law,” adopted in 2019, yet the precise meaning of both “sovereign” and “Internet” in this context has largely been overlooked. In this article, we attempt to problematize the use of both concepts by drawing on the history of the Internet in Russia to accentuate the structural asymmetries of power in “global” Internet governance. We argue that Russia’s Internet sovereignty claims, grasped in the context of these asymmetries, can be seen as an expression of counter-hegemonic tendencies. Moreover, a historical account of the Internet’s transformation in Russia problematizes a conception of “Internet sovereignty” as unitary and unchanging.