No description available.

The thesis examines the technological innovations related to artificial intelligence from the point of view of fundamental rights. The first part gives a general introduction on the technical characteristics of artificial intelligence, its historical development and the ethical, philosophical and legal debate about it. The second part analyses the impact of AI on the rights recognised by the Italian Constitution and the other main legal traditions based on the rule of law, focusing in particular on the protection of personal identity, the right to non-discrimination and freedom of speech. The third part explores the hypothesis of the recognition of three new rights due to the technological revolution: the right to artificial intelligence disclosure, the right to an explanation of outputs and the right to a human oversight of technology. These new legal positions are analysed in three hypothetical contexts of application: the public administration, the justice sector and the healthcare industry.

Domain names are still a relatively unknown occurrence and despite being a natural part in most people’s every-day life, there are few who reflect over their importance. The original function of domain names was merely to serve as technical addresses and to facilitate the locating of websites on the Internet. Today domain names are much more than this. In addition to the address function, domain names may also serve as indications of goods, services, businesses or information. The domain name is usually the first contact one gets with a website and it has become crucial for businesses to have their company name or trade marks registered as domain names. The issue of the legal status of domain names has mainly been discussed from an American point of view and in Sweden this discussion has almost entirely fallen under the radar. If the legal status of a domain name were clear, it would be easier for businesses to avail themselves of the value of that domain name. It would possibly even contribute to strengthening the legal protection for the domain name holder, in for example insolvency or bankruptcy procedures. Intellectual property exists in many different forms, the main being patents, trade marks, copyright and design rights. Although there are many differences between them, they all have in common that they establish property protection over intangibles such as ideas, inventions, signs and information. As a domain name is not a physical object, there can be no doubt that it is an intangible. The question is whether it is property. Intellectual property is not a static area and it can, in line with societal and technological development, be expanded to include new types. The legal status of domain names is generally discussed in the light of the close connection they have with trade marks. Except from their original function, the trade mark function of domain names can probably be considered as one of the most commonly accepted. It is indicated in this thesis that that function contributes to that a domain name can be considered as a distinctive sign and thereby obtain protection, in the same way as an unregistered trade mark. According to current accounting rules, businesses may, to some extent, avail themselves of the value of a domain name. Domain names are under certain circumstances identified as intangible assets and even as ‘similar rights’ to for example trade marks and patents in accounting and taxation situations. At this time it is not possible to legislate on the area of the legal status of a domain name on a Community level, as this most likely would have to include a consideration of the existence of property rights and consequently fall outside the legislative powers of the Community. Both the legal development and the legal discussions on the topic of the legal status of domain names in Sweden have been relatively sparse. Nonetheless, there have been some interesting opinions. By investigating what positions the different authorities, academics and practitioners have taken on the legal status of domain names it can be concluded that the prevailing opinion in Sweden is that domain names are not considered as property. The reason for this seems to be that domain names as such, are in fact no more than technical constructions and that by registering a domain name the registrant only becomes the holder of a contractual right. However, there are some diverging opinions which could suggest that the legal status of domain names in Sweden is not yet settled. The aspects which are then taken into consideration include that domain names have developed to become important and valuable assets for an increasing number of businesses. A domain name is a precondition for the creation of a website and therefore of crucial importance for, in particular, online based businesses. However, they are of increasing importance for all businesses to reach out to and compete over the same customers. It is advocated that the fact that domain names are freely traded with indicates that domain names are property. It has also been questioned whether an asset with a true economic value, such as a domain name, can exist without being considered as an item of property. The steps taken in other jurisdictions have shown that the legal status of domain names is not even clear in some of the countries with the greatest experience of domain names. Nonetheless, the legal status is given attention in those countries and the discussion has been initiated. In general, it can be concluded that the development seems to go toward higher awareness of the value of domain names.

<p>Domain names are still a relatively unknown occurrence and despite being a natural part in</p><p>most people’s every-day life, there are few who reflect over their importance. The original</p><p>function of domain names was merely to serve as technical addresses and to facilitate the</p><p>locating of websites on the Internet. Today domain names are much more than this. In</p><p>addition to the address function, domain names may also serve as indications of goods,</p><p>services, businesses or information. The domain name is usually the first contact one gets</p><p>with a website and it has become crucial for businesses to have their company name or</p><p>trade marks registered as domain names. The issue of the legal status of domain names has</p><p>mainly been discussed from an American point of view and in Sweden this discussion has</p><p>almost entirely fallen under the radar. If the legal status of a domain name were clear, it</p><p>would be easier for businesses to avail themselves of the value of that domain name. It</p><p>would possibly even contribute to strengthening the legal protection for the domain name</p><p>holder, in for example insolvency or bankruptcy procedures.</p><p>Intellectual property exists in many different forms, the main being patents, trade marks,</p><p>copyright and design rights. Although there are many differences between them, they all</p><p>have in common that they establish property protection over intangibles such as ideas,</p><p>inventions, signs and information. As a domain name is not a physical object, there can be</p><p>no doubt that it is an intangible. The question is whether it is property. Intellectual</p><p>property is not a static area and it can, in line with societal and technological development,</p><p>be expanded to include new types.</p><p>The legal status of domain names is generally discussed in the light of the close connection</p><p>they have with trade marks. Except from their original function, the trade mark function of</p><p>domain names can probably be considered as one of the most commonly accepted. It is</p><p>indicated in this thesis that that function contributes to that a domain name can be</p><p>considered as a distinctive sign and thereby obtain protection, in the same way as an</p><p>unregistered trade mark.</p><p>According to current accounting rules, businesses may, to some extent, avail themselves of</p><p>the value of a domain name. Domain names are under certain circumstances identified as</p><p>intangible assets and even as ‘similar rights’ to for example trade marks and patents in</p><p>accounting and taxation situations.</p><p>At this time it is not possible to legislate on the area of the legal status of a domain name</p><p>on a Community level, as this most likely would have to include a consideration of the</p><p>existence of property rights and consequently fall outside the legislative powers of the</p><p>Community.</p><p>Both the legal development and the legal discussions on the topic of the legal status of</p><p>domain names in Sweden have been relatively sparse. Nonetheless, there have been some</p><p>interesting opinions.</p><p>By investigating what positions the different authorities, academics and practitioners have</p><p>taken on the legal status of domain names it can be concluded that the prevailing opinion</p><p>in Sweden is that domain names are not considered as property. The reason for this seems</p><p>to be that domain names as such, are in fact no more than technical constructions and that</p><p>by registering a domain name the registrant only becomes the holder of a contractual right.</p><p>However, there are some diverging opinions which could suggest that the legal status of</p><p>domain names in Sweden is not yet settled. The aspects which are then taken into</p><p>consideration include that domain names have developed to become important and</p><p>valuable assets for an increasing number of businesses. A domain name is a precondition</p><p>for the creation of a website and therefore of crucial importance for, in particular, online</p><p>based businesses. However, they are of increasing importance for all businesses to reach</p><p>out to and compete over the same customers.</p><p>It is advocated that the fact that domain names are freely traded with indicates that domain</p><p>names are property. It has also been questioned whether an asset with a true economic</p><p>value, such as a domain name, can exist without being considered as an item of property.</p><p>The steps taken in other jurisdictions have shown that the legal status of domain names is</p><p>not even clear in some of the countries with the greatest experience of domain names.</p><p>Nonetheless, the legal status is given attention in those countries and the discussion has</p><p>been initiated. In general, it can be concluded that the development seems to go toward</p><p>higher awareness of the value of domain names.</p>

This paper investigates how audio monitoring systems should be designed, in the context of smart cities and in accordance with Swedish legislation. Audio monitoring for smart cities is promising and have previously shown great potential. However its opportunities are still relatively unexplored. ShotSpotter is one of several examples of audio monitoring in the context of smart cities. In the US only, the system has successfully been used to alert and locate shootings in over 90 cities. However, the technology is surrounded by controversies and there has been debate whether audio monitoring systems are compatible with law. Compatibility is critical since incompatibility could result in severe sanctions. Research related to this paper has been conducted according to the Design Science research strategy. The research resulted in design guidelines for audio monitoring systems, for law enforcement purposes, in accordance with Swedish law. The design guidelines are based upon existing audio monitoring systems, previous research and empirical data. The empirical data consists of 12 interviews with experts in law, phonetics and digital forensics. Additionally, the design guidelines have been evaluated by an expert in a criteria-based evaluation interview. Results of the research shows that it is, in fact, possible to design audio monitoring systems, in the context of smart cities, in accordance with Swedish legislation. The design guidelines can be applied in the development of audio monitoring systems with law enforcement purposes. With some modification, they can also be used for audio monitoring systems with other purposes. / Uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka hur ljudövervakningssystem inom ramen för smarta städer- konceptet bör utformas i enlighet med svensk lagstiftning. Ljudövervakning för smarta städer har visat på stor potential och ännu är dess möjligheter outforskade. ShotSpotter är ett av flera exempel på ljudövervakning inom ramen för smarta städer. Systemet har med framgång använts för att uppmärksamma och lokalisera skottlossningar i över 90 amerikanska städer. Det råder dock debatt huruvida ljudövervakningssystemet är kompatibelt med lagstiftning. Denna kompatibilitet är kritisk då det motsatta kan resultera i stränga påföljder och därmed utgöra direkta hinder för implementation. Forskning i relation till uppsatsen har genomförts inom ramen för forskningsstrategin Design Science. Forskningsprocessen har mynnat ut i designriktlinjer för hur ett ljudövervakningssystem med brottsbekämpande syfte bör utformas i enlighet med svensk lagstiftning. Designriktlinjerna baseras på befintliga ljudövervakningssystem, tidigare forskning och omfattande empiriskt underlag. Det empiriska underlaget utgörs av 12 intervjuer med olika typer av experter inom juridik, fonetik och IT- forensik. Designriktlinjerna har med framgång utvärderats i en kriteriebaserad expertintervju. Av forskningsresultatet att döma är det möjligt att utforma ljudövervakningssystem för smarta städer i enlighet med svensk lagstiftning. De framtagna designriktlinjerna kan användas vid utveckling av ljudövervakningssystem med brottsbekämpande syfte. Med viss modifikation kan de även användas för ljudövervakningssystem med andra syften.

Frågan om rätten till personlig integritet är aktuell på ett helt annat sätt idag än den var på 1990-talet. Sedan dataskyddsdirektivet trädde i kraft har behandlingen av personuppgifter ökat exponentiellt. Informationsteknik har möjliggjort en omfattande kartläggning av personers beteenden online. Idag använder många webbplatser funktioner för att samla in och på andra sätt behandla sina besökares personuppgifter. Samtidigt har informationen om personuppgiftsbehandlingen som ges till enskilda på webbplatser i många fall blivit omfattande och komplicerad. Ett av syftena med den nya dataskyddsförordningen är att bygga upp konsumenters förtroende för handel på internet. Förordningen syftar även till att stärka skyddet för enskildas personliga integritet. Bestämmelserna kan anses vara svårtydda, vilket kan leda till att skyddet som bäst blir oförändrat. I ett samhälle som blir alltmer digitaliserat tycks det önskvärt att de moderna reglerna håller vad de lovar, annars kan konsekvenserna bli stora. I denna uppsats diskuteras om dataskyddsförordningens krav på informerat samtycke förbättrar förutsättningarna för ett effektivt skydd för den personliga integriteten. De nya bestämmelserna är mer omfattande men har kritiserats för att vara otydliga, närmare principer i direktiv snarare än direkt tillämplig förordningstext. Bestämmelserna behöver också vägas mot andra rättigheter. Därför kan bestämmelserna om samtycke och informationsplikt leda till ett sämre skydd för enskilde om inte tydlig vägledning ges. Det är därför en risk som kommer behöva beaktas vid tillämpningen av förordningen. Om personuppgiftsansvariga saknar vägledning finns en risk att bestämmelserna i praktiken inte ger enskilda den kontroll över sina personuppgifter som var avsedd.

Since the US National Security Agency’s former contractor Edward Snowden exposed the Agency’s mass surveillance, the EU has been making a series of attempts toward a more safeguarded and stricter path concerning its data privacy protection. On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) invalidated the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC on the basis of incompatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). After this judgment, the CJEU examined the legality of the Safe Harbour Agreement, which had been the main legal basis for transfers of personal data from the EU to the US under Decision 2000/520/EC. Subsequently, on 6 October 2015, in the case of Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, the CJEU declared the Safe Harbour Decision invalid. The ground for the Court’s judgment was the fact that the Decision enabled interference, by US public authorities, with the fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection under Article 7 and 8 of the Charter, when processing the personal data of EU citizens. According to the judgment, this interference has been beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate to the protection of national security and the persons concerned were not offered any administrative or judicial means of redress enabling the data relating to them to be accessed, rectified or erased. The Court’s analysis of the Safe Harbour was borne out of the EU Commission’s own previous assessments. Consequently, since the transfers of personal data between the EU and the US can no longer be carried out through the Safe Harbour, the EU legislature is left with the task to create a safer option, which will guarantee that the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data of the EU citizens will be respected. However, although the EU is the party dictating the terms for these transatlantic transfers of personal data, the current provisions of the US law are able to provide for derogations from every possible renewed agreement unless they become compatible with the EU data privacy law. Moreover, as much business is at stake and prominent US companies are involved in this battle, the pressure toward the US is not only coming from the EU, but some American companies are also taking the fight for EU citizens’ right to privacy and protection of their personal data.