All issues > Volume 13 > Issue 1 > Article

As cross-border online transactions increase the issue of cross-border dispute resolution and enforcement becomes more and more topical. Disputes arising from e-commerce are seldom taken into the public courts and therefore online dispute resolution (ODR) is becoming a mainstream solution for resolving them. Simultaneously, different applications and possibilities of blockchain technologies such as cryptocurrencies have caught the attention of both computer scientists and legal scholars, increasingly gaining momentum. However, the potential of blockchains reach further than their use as a currency: they can be used for the decentralised execution of programmable contracts known as smart contracts, completely without the need for intermediaries like e-commerce sites, credit card companies or courts. These possibilities have not previously been discussed in relation to dispute resolution. This article provides an introduction to this new technological possibility by examining self-executing smart contracts that utilise novel blockchain technologies. To demonstrate the logic behind smart contracts more concretely, a weather bet (i.e. a bet on what the weather is going to be in a given location) is translated into a programmable smart contract and then discussed in lines of code with further explanations. In addition to this, the author suggests that smart contracts could also be employed for the purposes of dispute resolution, which might provide a solution for the problem of enforcing ODR decisions. Instead of normative analysis, the article provides an introductory analysis of the legal implications that the blockchain technology has outside its application as virtual currency.

On paper, participants in population biobanks – large-scale collections of human samples and associated health data – enjoy a number of rights such as the right to consent to their participation, to withdraw, to feedback and to view their data (biobank rights). In reality, however, exercising these rights proves difficult, as it requires participants to use pen and paper, envelops and stamps, and regular mail. Worse, some rights are even denied, as honouring them is claimed to require a disproportionate effort on the part of the biobank. This “enforcement deficit” is hard to justify in the light of the same very developments in IT that helped build and use the biobanks; why not deploy that technology to empower participants to exercise their rights in those biobanks? This question may become an imperative, as the recently adopted EU General Data Protection Regulation now requires biobanks to facilitate the exercise of data subject rights. Introducing the concept of Consent and Control Enhancing Technologies – akin to the concept of Privacy Enhancing Technologies – we have designed and delivered a digital biobank rights portal (“MyBiobank”), which enables participants in a population biobank to actually (i.e. digitally) exercise a number of their biobank rights. On the flipside, MyBiobank provides biobanks with a platform to: (i) reduce time and costs of organising and distributing questionnaires; (ii) honour participants’ biobank rights and to meet statutory requirements; (iii) build and maintain trust and transparency among participants, researchers, research ethics committees, supervisory authorities, funders and the public; (iv) promote participant engagement; (v) “valorise” findings, knowledge and data; (vi) benefit from unsolicited, active contributions of the participant to biobank research and (vii) share benefits with participants by providing them with a digital avenue to get to see “what’s in it for him or her.” Notably, however, in the current version of MyBiobank, both the issue of withdrawal and the issue of feedback of genetic information remain to be resolved.

This paper aims to assess whether ‘revenge porn’ merits regulation in Scotland, and, if so, how this ought to be achieved. In doing so, this paper critically assesses ‘revenge porn’ from feminist perspectives to highlight the harms caused by the conduct, analyses the extent to which victims are adequately protected by the current legislative framework in Scotland, and discusses whether criminalisation is the most desirable method of regulation. Finally, an in-depth comparative analysis of approaches to criminalisation in several other jurisdictions seeks to ascertain how Scottish legislation addressing ‘revenge porn’ could be effectively drafted. The paper concludes that ‘revenge porn’ is a form of “cyber-misogyny”: one online example of gendered hatred, harassment and abuse primarily directed towards women and girls. In light of the severity of this behaviour, it’s destructive impact on individual victims and on society as a whole; it is argued that criminalisation is the most appropriate method of regulation.

This article calls for a reimagining of regulatory approaches to health research. It is argued that an essential first step of such a reimagining involves the development of a deeper understanding of the diverse and indispensable roles which principles can play as regulatory decision-making aids. This topic merits attention given the fact that we perpetually rely upon principles without really considering what it is we are asking principles to do within the regulatory environment. In particular, this paper considers how principles can assist in addressing key challenges which new technologies pose to regulation, as well as the relationships that might exist between principles and rules in such instances. The discussion here takes place against the backdrop of the complex and evolving landscape of the governance of the reuse of data for health research. At the same time, the contributions in this article can be of real value to contemporary challenges in a far wider array of governance contexts beyond the health setting.

More than ever the notion of control plays a pivotal and pervasive role in the discourses of privacy and data protection. Privacy scholarship and regulators propose to increase individual control over personal information as the ultimate prescriptive solution to tackle the issues raised by emergent data processing technologies. Conceived as “the claim of individuals to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others”, the notion of control is not new. It is often considered as the unique means of empowerment of the data subject. The mechanisms of this empowerment remain however surprisingly vague and understudied. What does it really mean to be in control of one’s data in the context of contemporary socio-technical environments and practices? What are the characteristics, purposes and potential limits of such control and how can we guarantee data subjects effective control over their own data? This paper undertakes an interdisciplinary review of the concept of “control” to explore such questions in the fields of law and computer science.

Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2014 Share and share alike? An examination of trust, anonymisation and data sharing with particular reference to an exploratory research project investigating attitudes to sharing personal data with the public sector Marion Oswald Cite as:

Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2014 DRM and Modchips: Time for the Court of Justice to do the “Right” Thing Martina Gillen Cite as: Martina Gillen, “DRM and Modchips: Time for the Court of Justice to do the “Right” Thing”,

Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2014 Virtual Worlds – a Legal Post-Mortem Account Edina Harbinja Cite as: Edina Harbinja, “Virtual Worlds – a Legal Post-Mortem Account”, (2014) 11:3 SCRIPTed 273 http://script-ed.org/?p=1669 Download PDF DOI: 10.2966/scrip.110314.273 ©  Edina Harbinja 2014. This work

Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2014 The Views Expressed Represent Mine Alone: Academic Freedom and Social Media Maria Helen Murphy Cite as: Maria Helen Murphy, “The Views Expressed Represent Mine Alone: Academic Freedom and Social Media”, (2014) 11:3 SCRIPTed 210