Obligatory readings:

Andrew Murray (2019) Information Technology Law, pp. 55-84 (Part I, Chapter 4
Regulating the information society)
- Logistical challenge: sociatel move from value in atoms to value in bits
requires traditional legal roles to be reevaluated when considering to use te
law
- As in the real world we make laws to rotect rights and rules related to reality,
an dhysical things there is big challenge
- Eg: should rovisions of real laws eg theft act aly to online games related to
virtual roerty?
- Eg: Should legal rules be designed in a way to revent child abuse imagaes
found in laws be extended to roduction, ossession of such images online,
imiges that ae comuter generated.
- No border controls on internet goods that much, many argue that because eof
that national ruls cannot be extended to cybersace> belived that borderless
nature of the online environment would make the legislature owerless and
would emower eole in in cybersace to make their own laws and govern
things from within (Cyberlibertarianism)
- Others disagreed: arguing on could bwe regulate the vctions of individuals in
the digital environment at all?
1.1 Cyberlibertarianism (cyber utopianism)
Cyber saceis a lace where real worl legislature and gov has no real effect
Declaration of ideendence b barlo
Laws made in confines in its ownurisdictions so when u go to internet the
border is crossed by the other nations judiciary or other
But U do not go to the cybersace hysically no matter what nad the erson
remains under the rules of his nation> there are true ways o enforcement
Cybersace fallace: interetis a new jurisdiction without hysial existence, it
exands and contracts> all actors onvoloved have real world existence thus
affected by the real world laws
Lack o hysicality
Real world legialature lacks the ability to make operations in sovereign
cyberspaces> based on thought tht there is border between real space and
cyberspaces, once u get to cyberspace eu can freely do whatever without
barriers
Regulation founded on state sovereignty cannot function as in cyberspace it
is impossible to regulate the eoel’s acts, eg obscenity, contemt of court
Citizens of cyberspace can take part of regulatory arbitrage> people
can choose what to be regulated by eg: border and police forces
 The authorities do not have the resources to prosecute such a mass
program of disobideince online: there have been no prosecution in
England and wales under obscenity act or the customs act for privately
viewing obscene material online

Because eof that based on the cyberliberitarian view the people can
decide how they wish to be regulated online in theceberspace free
market regulation: decentraliyed law and common standards (las
developed organically) reflect onine values except for traditional
views but wwho ecides the laws and who saysthem and enforces them
 Decentralized actions very unlikely to lead to common actions
from mutual coordiatio
 That is why ther eeded to e orders ad etc
4.2:cyerpateralism therearereal world itervetios
 New models are created:ivolvig states, private sector, technical iterests ad
citizens contractual agreements, network architecture,
 new geography of internet was man made technical standards could work
as online borders lex informatica drawing from lex mercantelia
 political governance usually give sthe substantive laws of nationa states, in
lex informatica the primary sources of default law making would be the
technolog developpers and the social processes through which the tech
evolves rather than being unregulable the internet is closely regulated by
its architecture, in light of lex informatica’s dependence on design choices it
attributes public oversight associated with regulatory regimes could be
maintained by shifting the focus of gov actions away from direct regulations
on cyber space to influencing change to architectureNEW SCHOOL OF
CYBERPATERALISTS: legal control part of networks metric cpntrols in
the pnline environment
o law makers mandate change by ruling chage sto the network
architecture or by supporting self regulating activities by
selfdesigners laurance lesig code and other laws of cyber space: 4
modalitie sof regulation used togtehre or separate used directoy or
indirectly by regulators to controlaction online or offline
o law maiing as developed in democracy, if it wants to become
sovereign it must become clearly a citizen sovereignity there they will
reect real world regulations this idea is totanomous, this attempt will
fail
4.2.1 laurance lessig modalities of regulation
- 4 modalities:
 1. laws: contrain through the act of punishment
ii. markets: contrain through the price and price related signals
iii. architecture: contrains physically
iv. norms: contrain through the application of societal sanctions
(criticism, austrasism)
 by choosing modalities from the 4 the regulators may get
whatever outcome they wish, than the cyberliberatians are
wrong
 people do not not steal becaue of the law, majority does not
steal becaue they do not want to steal in the first place (moral
conditioning) constraint on actions
 how do they function together?--> pathetic dot in th middle of
the 4 modalities
different nations have different modals on general level, eg norms are different per
political and religious groups
code controls: eg internet watch foundation: IWF for public to report child abuse
and child pornographic imagery
- iwf is privte grup founded by eu, with connetections tointerpol an dlot os
cops
- blocks sites on the list
- reduced imagery in uk
- uk has ew control for online content, eg: age verification requirement: digital
economy act 2017

who makes laws for cyberspace? Is legitimate for companies to regulate their
cyberspace through code?
- Goverenments could harnest cod eto regeulate online experience, is it
legitimate fr them to do so?--> could tegulte in this form but should they?

4.3: network communitarianism

- Should regulators use coe eto regulate?
- Who is bets placed tomake decisions
- Gov should be kept out
- All ussume that the code will fall to private individuls than to shareholders,
not isers if the government does not take a step in regulating the online
nevironmenet
o Eg: private code makers such as google, facebooks
o Code like language is however not in the control of a minority
group it develops organically through the online group that’s is wh
yteh gov should be kept out (cyberliberitarian)
o Problem is that libs and pats are technodeterministic: asusuming that
the code determines behavior, it is true that architecture influneces our
behavouri but we will react to it individually and collectively as well
 Code is not final dteremination of our actions, it also ha social
and comunicativee role: 3RD SCHOOL IS THE NETWORK
COMMUNITARIANISM: developed in europe
 Andrew murray is network communitarian
 Maininfluences: 2 thoughts in eu (amt and sst) not influence d
the othere 2 schools