Difference between revisions of "Internet of things – Need for a new legal environment"

From Wiki IoT
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
|author=WEBER R.H.
|author=WEBER R.H.
|title=Internet of things – Need for a new legal environment?
|title=Internet of things – Need for a new legal environment?

Latest revision as of 13:15, 15 April 2016

WEBER R.H., Internet of things – Need for a new legal environment?, Computer law & security review, V. 25, 2009, 522–527

Type Article
Abstract The Internet of Things as an emerging global, Internet-based information service archi-

tecture facilitating the exchange of goods in global supply chain networks is developing on the technical basis of the present Domain Name System; drivers are private actors. Learning from the experiences with the ‘‘traditional’’ Internet governance it is important to tackle the relevant issues of a regulatory framework from the beginning; in particular, the implementation of an independently managed decentralized multiple-root system and the establishment of basic governance principles (such as transparency and accountability, legitimacy of institutional bodies, inclusion of civil society) are to be envisaged.

Link https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222544977_Internet_of_things_-_Need_for_a_new_legal_environment
Topics Data Protection, Miscellaneous, Security, Technology, Interoperability


“Since the IoT is not only a mere extension of today’s Internet, but rather a complex netting of independent but interoperable systems, implemented in a symbiosis with new services and different modes of communication, the traditional Internet Governance concepts are not anymore suitable to identically be applied, but the development of decentralized architectures and the promotion of a shared network of multistakeholderism governance for the IoT is needed”.

EC 2006 workshop: “From RFID to the IoT”. IoT Policy challenges considered: security, privacy, data protection, control of critical global resources, subsidiarity, identity management, naming, interoperability, fostering innovation, spectrum, standardization, raising awareness among all stakeholders, reducing entry barriers to IoT technologies/services, guaranteeing individuals’ fundamental rights (privacy, protection of personal data, consumer protection).

EC focuses on RFID, which is reprehensible, because that fosters the idea that RFID is the dominant technology governing the IoT: the risk is to limit development of alternative technologies.

“The future IoT […] needs a multipolar and decentralized policy institutional setting considering the needs of all stakeholders involved, managed by several entities”, with procedures that establish a balanced bargaining power among stakeholders.