Public policy responses to cybercrime: a new special issue from Policy and Internet

by Stefan Fafinski 01/06/2011

While ‘cybercrime’ can be used to describe a range of undesirable conduct facilitated by networked technologies, it is not a legal term of art, and many so-called cybercrimes are not necessarily crimes as far as the criminal law is concerned.

by Stefan Fafinski 01/06/2011

Cybercrime is just one of many significant and challenging issues of ethics and public policy raised by the Internet. It has policy implications for both national and supra-national legislation, involving, as it may, attacks against the integrity, authenticity, and confidentiality of information systems; content-related crimes, and “traditional”: crimes committed using networked technologies.

While ‘cybercrime’ can be used to describe a wide range of undesirable conduct facilitated by networked technologies, it is not a legal term of art, and many so-called cybercrimes (such as cyber-rape and the virtual vandalism of virtual worlds) are not necessarily crimes as far as the criminal law is concerned. This can give rise to novel situations in which outcomes that feel instinctively wrong do not give rise to criminal liability. Emily Finch discusses the tragic case of Bernard Gilbert: a man whose argument over a disputed parking space led to his death, a police officer having disclosed Gilbert’s home address to his assailant. The officer was charged simply with the offence of disclosing personal data; the particular consequences of such disclosure being immaterial under English criminal law. Finch argues that this is unsatisfactory: as more personal information is gathered and available online, the greater the potential risk to the individual from its unauthorised disclosure. She advocates a two-tier structure for liability in the event that disclosure results in harm.

(more…)

Economics, Governance & Security

Personal data protection vs the digital economy? OII policy forum considers our digital footprints

by Vicki Nash 03/02/2011 1 Comment

The fact that data collection is now so routine and so extensive should make us question whether the regulatory system governing data collection, storage and use is fit for purpose.

by Vicki Nash 03/02/2011 1 Comment

Catching a bus, picking up some groceries, calling home to check on the children—all simple, seemingly private activities that characterise many people’s end to the working day. Yet each of these activities leaves a data trail that enables companies, even the state, to track the most mundane aspects of our lives. Add to this the range and quantity of personal data that many of us willingly post online on our blogs, Facebook walls or Google docs, and it is clear that the trail of digital footprints we leave is long and hard to erase. Even if in most cases, this data is only likely to be used in an anonymised and aggregated form to identify trends in transport or shopping patterns, or to personalise the Internet services available to us, the fact that its collection is now so routine and so extensive should make us question whether the regulatory system governing data collection, storage and use is fit for purpose. A forthcoming OII policy forum on Tracing the Policy Implications of the Future Digital Economy (16 Feb) will consider this question, bringing together leading academics from across several disciplines with policy-makers and industry experts. This is a topic which the OII is well-placed to address. Ian Brown’s Privacy Values Network project addresses a major knowledge gap, measuring the various costs and benefits to individuals of handing over data in different contexts, as without this we simply don’t know how much people value their privacy (or indeed understand its limits). The last Oxford Internet Survey (OxIS) rather surprisingly showed that in 2009 people were significantly less concerned about privacy online in the UK than in previous years (45% of all those surveyed in 2009 against 66% in 2007); we wait to see whether this finding is repeated when OxIS 2011 goes into the field next month. Our faculty also have much to say about the adequacy (or otherwise) of the regulatory framework:…

Collective Action, Democracy, Politics & Government, Publications

Last 2010 issue of Policy and Internet just published (2,4)

by David Sutcliffe 20/12/2010

We are pleased to present seven articles, all of which focus on a substantive public policy issue arising from widespread use of the Internet.

by David Sutcliffe 20/12/2010

The last 2010 issue of Policy and Internet has just been published! We are pleased to present seven articles, all of which focus on a substantive public policy issue arising from widespread use of the Internet: online political advocacy and petitioning, nationalism and borders online, unintended consequences of the introduction of file-sharing legislation, and the implications of Internet voting and voting advice applications for democracy and political participation. Links to the articles are included below. Happy reading! Helen Margetts: Editorial David Karpf: Online Political Mobilisation from the Advocacy Group’s Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism Elisabeth A. Jones and Joseph W. Janes: Anonymity in a World of Digital Books: Google Books, Privacy, and the Freedom to Read Stefan Larsson and Måns Svensson: Compliance or Obscurity? Online Anonymity as a Consequence of Fighting Unauthorised File-sharing Irina Shklovski and David M. Struthers: Of States and Borders on the Internet: The Role of Domain Name Extensions in Expressions of Nationalism Online in Kazakhstan Andreas Jungherr and Pascal Jürgens: The Political Click: Political Participation through E-Petitions in Germany Jan Fivaz and Giorgio Nadig: Impact of Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) on Voter Turnout and Their Potential Use for Civic Education Anne-Marie Oostveen: Outsourcing Democracy: Losing Control of e-Voting in the Netherlands

Politics & Government, Publications

New issue of Policy and Internet (2,3)

by David Sutcliffe 04/11/2010

We are pleased to present five articles focusing on substantive public policy issues arising from widespread use of the Internet.

by David Sutcliffe 04/11/2010

Welcome to the third issue of Policy & Internet for 2010. We are pleased to present five articles focusing on substantive public policy issues arising from widespread use of the Internet: regulation of trade in virtual goods; development of electronic government in Korea; online policy discourse in UK elections; regulatory models for broadband technologies in the US; and alternative governance frameworks for open ICT standards. Three of the articles are the first to be published from the highly successful conference ‘Internet, Politics and Policy’ held by the journal in Oxford, 16th-17th September 2010. You may access any of the articles below at no charge. Helen Margetts: Editorial Vili Lehdonvirta and Perttu Virtanen: A New Frontier in Digital Content Policy: Case Studies in the Regulation of Virtual Goods and Artificial Scarcity Joon Hyoung Lim: Digital Divides in Urban E-Government in South Korea: Exploring Differences in Municipalities’ Use of the Internet for Environmental Governance Darren G. Lilleker and Nigel A. Jackson: Towards a More Participatory Style of Election Campaigning: The Impact of Web 2.0 on the UK 2010 General Election Michael J. Santorelli: Regulatory Federalism in the Age of Broadband: A U.S. Perspective Laura DeNardis: E-Governance Policies for Interoperability and Open Standards

Conferences

Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Wrap-Up

by Professor Tobias Escher 17/09/2010

Making an assessment of the Internet’s impact on politics and policy.

by Professor Tobias Escher 17/09/2010

Our two-day conference is just about to come to an end with an evening reception at Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum (you can have a live view through OII’s very own webcam). Its aim was to try to make an assessment of the Internet’s impact on politics and policy. The presentations approached this challenge from a number of different angles and we would like to encourage everyone to browse the archive of papers on the conference website to get a comprehensive overview about much of the cutting-edge research that is currently taking place in many different parts of the world. The submissions to this conference allowed setting up very topical panels in which the different papers fitted together rather well. Helen Margetts, the convenor, highlighted in her summary just how much discussion and informed exchange has been going on within these panels. But a conference is more than the collection of papers delivered. It is just as much about the social gathering of people who share similar interests and the conference schedule tried to accommodate for this by offering many coffee breaks to encourage more informal exchange. It is a testimony to the success of this strategy that the majority of people have very much welcomed the idea to have a similar conference in two years time, details of which are yet to be confirmed. Great thanks to everybody who helped to make this conference happen, in particular OII’s dedicated support staff such as journal editor David Sutcliffe and events manager Tim Davies.

Conferences

Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Closing keynote by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

by Professor Tobias Escher 17/09/2010

What he sees at stake is power because of the permanent threat of our activities are being watched by others—not necessarily now but possibly even in the future—can result in altering our behaviour today.

by Professor Tobias Escher 17/09/2010

Our two-day conference is coming to a close with a keynote by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger who is soon to be joining the faculty of the Oxford Internet Institute as Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation. Viktor talked about the theme of his recent book “Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age” (a webcast of this keynote will be available soon on the OII website but you can also listen to a previous talk here). It touches on many of the recent debates about information that has been published on the web in some context and which might suddenly come back to us in a completely different context, e.g. when applying for a job and being confronted with some drunken picture of us obtained from Facebook. Viktor puts that into a broad perspective, contrasting the two themes of “forgetting” and “remembering”. He convincingly argues how for most of human history, forgetting has been the default. This state of affairs has experienced quite a dramatic change with the advances of the computer technology, data storage and information retrieval technologies available on a global information infrastructure. Now remembering is the default as most of the information stored digitally is available forever and in multiple places. What he sees at stake is power because of the permanent threat of our activities are being watched by others—not necessarily now but possibly even in the future—can result in altering our behaviour today. What is more, he says that without forgetting it is hard for us to forgive as we deny us and others the possibility to change. No matter to what degree you are prepared to follow the argument, the most intriguing question is how the current state of remembering could be changed to forgetting. Viktor discusses a number of ideas that pose no real solution: privacy rights – don’t go very far in changing actual behaviour information ecology – the idea to store only as much…

Conferences

Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Campaigning in the 2010 UK General Election

by Professor Tobias Escher 17/09/2010

Drawing attention to the fact that the 2010 UK General Election was dominated not by the Internet but by a very traditional media instead, namely the TV debates of party leaders.

by Professor Tobias Escher 17/09/2010

The first day of the conference found an end in style with a well-received reception at Oxford’s fine Divinity Schools. Day Two of the conference kicked off with panels on “Mobilisation and Agenda Setting”,”Virtual Goods” and “Comparative Campaigning”. ICTlogy has been busy summarising some of the panels at the conference including this morning one’s with some interesting contributions on comparative campaigning. The second round of panels included a number of scientific approaches to the role of the Internet for the recent UK election: Gibson, Cantijoch and Ward in their analysis of the UK Elections drew attention to the fact that the 2010 UK General Election was dominated not by the Internet but by a very traditional media instead, namely the TV debates of party leaders. Importantly, they suggest to treat eParticipation as a multi-dimensional concept, ie. distinguish different forms of eParticipation with differing degrees of involvement, in fact in much the same way as we have come to treat traditional forms of participation. Anstead and Jensen aimed to trace distinctions in election campaigning between the national and the local level. They have found evidence that online campaigns are both decentralised (little mention of national campaigns) and localised (emphasizing horizontal links with the community). Lilleker and Jackson looked at how much party websites did encourage participation. They found that first and foremost, parties are about promoting their personnel and are rather cautious in engaging in any interactive communication. Most efforts were aimed at the campaign and not about getting input into policy. Even though there were more Web 2.0 features in use than in previous years, participation was low. Sudulich and Wall were interested in the uptake of online campaigning (campaign website, Facebook profile) by election candidates. They take into account a range of factors including bookmakers odds for candidates but found little explanatory effects overall.

Democracy, Politics & Government, Publications

Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Political Participation and Petitioning

by Professor Tobias Escher 16/09/2010

ePetitions are an interesting research object because not only is petitioning a rather popular political participation activity offline but also online.

by Professor Tobias Escher 16/09/2010

This panel was one of three in the first round of panels and has been focusing on ePetitions. Two contributions from Germany and two contributions from the UK brought a useful comparative perspective to the debate. ePetitions are an interesting research object because not only is petitioning a rather popular political participation activity offline but also online. It is also one of the few eParticipation activities quite a number of governments have been implemented by now, namely the UK, Germany and Scotland. Andreas Jungherr was providing a largely quantitative analysis of co-signature dynamics on the ePetitions website of the German Bundestag, providing some background on how many petitions attract a lot of signatures (only a few) and how many petitions a user signs (usually only one). This provided a background for the summary of a comprehensive study on ePetitioning in the German parliament by Ralf Linder. He offered a somewhat downbeat assessment in that the online system has failed to engage traditionally underrepresented groups of society to petitioning even though it has had impacted on the public debate. Giovanni Navarria was much harsher in his criticism of ePetitioning on the Downing Street site based on his analysis of the petition against the road tax. He concluded that the government was actually wrong in putting such a service onto its website as it had created unrealistic expectations a representative government could not meet. In contrast Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos in his evaluation of local ePetitioning in the Royal Borough of Kingston made a case for petitions on the local level to have the potential to really enhance local government democracy. This is a finding that is particularly important in the light of the UK government mandating online petitioning for all local authorities in the UK.

Conferences

Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: What is our impact on the Internet? Keynote by Arthur Lupia

by Professor Tobias Escher 16/09/2010

Have we been as effective as we could have been in changing people’s beliefs and behaviours?

by Professor Tobias Escher 16/09/2010

Arthur Lupia has just been delivering the opening keynote on our very own conference “Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: An Impact Assessment” here in Oxford. He started by turning on the audience: What is our impact on the Internet? Have we been as effective as we could have been in changing people’s beliefs and behaviours? However, this wasn’t about benchmarking success of researchers into Internet and Politics but about the question why many well-intentioned projects—be it making people participate in politics, be getting across the relevance of your ground-breaking research or whatever—ultimately fail. Arthur Lupia’s main argument that many of these well-meant enterprises do not take into account sufficiently how people are. How they are is—according to Lupia—mainly defined by three broad influences: biology social behaviour (e.g. how we learn etc) political contexts So in order to successfully persuade others (in any benign meaning of course) he posits three necessary conditions (implying that they might not be sufficient): attention: as people have a limited capacity to pay attention, your message will only get through if they feel its urgency and relevance for them elaboration: relate your message to the audience. People will only listen if it is unique and highly relevant to them. Ways to achieve this is by making it local, concrete and immediate but also by making the desired change possible, making clear that the desired effect is within reach credibility: Finally, credibility is key but this is not an absolute value but it is domain-specific. Credibility is bestowed on someone by the audience and depends on whether the audience believes (not matter if correctly) that you are knowledgeable and share their interests See the summary by ICTlogy about the talk and the Q&A session. To follow the conference on Twitter on all over the Internet, look for the IPP2010 tag.

Environment, Publications

New issue of Policy and Internet (2,2)

by David Sutcliffe 19/08/2010

We are pleased to present six articles which investigate the role of the Internet in a wide range of policy processes and sectors.

by David Sutcliffe 19/08/2010

Welcome to the second issue of Policy & Internet for 2010! We are pleased to present six articles which investigate the role of the Internet in a wide range of policy processes and sectors: agenda setting in online and traditional media; environmental policy networks; online deliberation on climate change; data protection and privacy; net neutrality; and digital inclusion/exclusion. You may access any of the articles below at no charge. Helen Margetts: Editorial Ben Sayre, Leticia Bode, Dhavan Shah, Dave Wilcox, and Chirag Shah: Agenda Setting in a Digital Age: Tracking Attention to California Proposition 8 in Social Media, Online News and Conventional News Kathleen McNutt and Adam Wellstead: Virtual Policy Networks in Forestry and Climate Change in the U.S. and Canada: Government Nodality, Internationalisation and Actor Complexity Julien Talpin and Stéphanie Wojcik: Deliberating Environmental Policy Issues: Comparing the Learning Potential of Online and Face-To-Face Discussions on Climate Change Andrew A. Adams, Kiyoshi Murata, and Yohko Orito: The Development of Japanese Data Protection Scott Jordan: The Application of Net Neutrality to Wireless Networks Based on Network Architecture Alison Powell, Amelia Bryne, and Dharma Dailey: The Essential Internet: Digital Exclusion in Low-Income American Communities

Articles