Suchergebnisse

The paper discusses the scientific and policy debate as to whether access to the Internet can be considered so fundamental for human interaction as to deserve a special legal protection. In particular, it examines the impact of computer-mediated communication on the realization of individual's rights and freedoms as well as on democratization processes. It then considers how Internet content governance is posing regulatory issues directly related to the growing importance of an equitable access to digital information. In this regard, the paper looks at conflicts arising within the systems of rights and obligations attached to communication (and especially content provision) over the Internet. The paper finally concludes by identifying emerging tensions and drawing out the implications for the nature and definitions of rights (e.g. of communication and access, but also of intellectual property ownership) and for regulations and actions taken to protect, promote or qualify those rights. All these points are illustrated by a series of recent examples.

The paper discusses the scientific and policy debate as to whether access to the Internet can be considered so fundamental for human interaction as to deserve a special legal protection. In particular, it examines the impact of computer-mediated communication on the realization of individual's rights and freedoms as well as on democratization processes. It then considers how Internet content governance is posing regulatory issues directly related to the growing importance of an equitable access to digital information. In this regard, the paper looks at conflicts arising within the systems of rights and obligations attached to communication (and especially content provision) over the Internet. The paper finally concludes by identifying emerging tensions and drawing out the implications for the nature and definitions of rights (e.g. of communication and access, but also of intellectual property ownership) and for regulations and actions taken to protect, promote or qualify those rights. All these points are illustrated by a series of recent examples.

The paper discusses the scientific and policy debate as to whether access to the Internet can be considered so fundamental for human interaction as to deserve a special legal protection. In particular, it examines the impact of computer-mediated communication on the realization of individual's rights and freedoms as well as on democratization processes. It then considers how Internet content governance is posing regulatory issues directly related to the growing importance of an equitable access to digital information. In this regard, the paper looks at conflicts arising within the systems of rights and obligations attached to communication (and especially content provision) over the Internet. The paper finally concludes by identifying emerging tensions and drawing out the implications for the nature and definitions of rights (e.g. of communication and access, but also of intellectual property ownership) and for regulations and actions taken to protect, promote or qualify those rights. All these points are illustrated by a series of recent examples.

How does mobile internet access affect the desire to emigrate and migration plans? To answer this question, we combine survey data on more than 600,000 individuals from 110 countries with data on worldwide 3G mobile internet rollout. We show that an increase in mobile internet access increases desire to emigrate. This effect is particularly strong for higher-income individuals in low-income countries. We identify three potential mechanisms. Access to the mobile internet lowers the cost of acquiring information and leads to a drop in perceived material well-being and trust in government. Using municipal-level data from Spain, we also document that 3G rollout increased actual migration flows.

Internet Privacy Rights analyses the current threats to our online autonomy and privacy and proposes a new model for the gathering, retention and use of personal data. Key to the model is the development of specific privacy rights: a right to roam the internet with privacy, a right to monitor the monitors, a right to delete personal data and a right to create, assert and protect an online identity. These rights could help in the formulation of more effective and appropriate legislation, and shape more privacy-friendly business models. The conclusion examines how the internet might look with these rights in place and whether such an internet could be sustainable from both a governmental and a business perspective

ObjectivesWhat accounts for the variation in the status of gay rights across countries? We consider the effects of media freedom and Internet access and hypothesize that it is the combination of the two that matters for promoting gay rights.MethodsUsing cross‐national time‐series data drawn from a variety of sources, we test our hypotheses using a measure of lesbian, gay, and bisexual legal equality.ResultsOur results indicate that the effects of media freedom and Internet access on gay rights are each conditional on the other. It is the interaction of media freedom and Internet access that has a statistically significant and positive effect on gay rights; without media freedom, Internet access has no significant effect and vice versa.ConclusionAll else being equal, we observe greater respect for gay rights in those countries featuring a combination of both free media and higher rates of Internet access.

2.2 Privacy as a fundamental or an instrumental right2.3 Informational privacy and internet privacy; 2.4 Privacy and control; 2.5 How the internet has challenged privacy; 3 Autonomy and consent; 3.1 The complexity of consent on the internet; 3.2 The power of the default -- and opt-in or opt-out; 3.3 Is consent a red herring?; 3.4 Collaborative consent: consent as a process and a dialogue; 4 Autonomy, privacy, challenges and criticisms; 4.1 The security challenge; 4.2 The economic challenge; 4.3 The communitarian critique; 4.4 Feminist critiques; 4.5 Transparency critiques and challenges.

Since gaining independence from the British Empire in 1964, Malta has had a very restrictive voting policy. Voter enfranchisement is based on three pillars: citizenship, residence and age. The only exceptions to this rule, introduced in 2004 as a result of EU accession, are the electoral rights granted to EU citizens at local and European Parliament elections. Prior to this, British citizens resident in Malta had already been granted Local Council electoral rights in 1993, when Local Council elections started being held. This latter 'exception' can be attributed to the strong ties between the two countries due to the historical colonial relationship, and by the mere fact that the British expat community is the largest foreign group in Malta. Voting is deeply entrenched in Maltese political culture. An indication of this lies in the consistently high voter turnout at national elections – 96 per cent in 2003 and 93 per cent in 2008. This is the highest for non-mandatory elections worldwide, often superseding even countries where voting is mandatory. The political scientist William Hirzy attributes this high voter turnout to the intense competition between the two main political parties, and the results are always very close; the national elections in 2008 were the closest, won by a mere 1,600 votes. Indeed, elections are preceded by aggressive campaigns, fraught with a confrontational style of electioneering. Loyalties to the two main political parties are 'strong, stable and rooted in social and family backgrounds.' This signifies, and is a result of, what the European studies scholar Michelle Cini has described as the 'extremely high stakes at general elections.' Interestingly, in spite of the fact that Malta uses a version of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system which allows voters to cross party lists when selecting their candidates, in practice voters tend to vote per party. This shows the paramount importance of party allegiance for the Maltese. With such a deeply pervasive political culture, it is positively. The electoral rights of foreigners, in general, have not been a major topic of discussion in Maltese politics and society. Indeed, the question of enfranchising foreigners is rarely critically addressed by Maltese politicians, major institutions or Maltese society. Alternatives to the present system are hardly ever mentioned, except in some cases by 'Alternattiva Demokratika', the Green Party, a very small party which has only had limited success in a few Local Council elections. Even EU citizens, who have been enfranchised in Local Council and European Parliament elections since 2004, did not managed to stir a significant debate when they encountered difficulties in accessing their electoral rights. This demonstrates the inflexibility towards new alternatives and the reluctance to consider foreign voters on an equal par with Maltese voters. The paucity of debates in this field is interrupted, albeit on a minor scale, by two issues: the question of in-country voting together with the public expense of subsidising flights for eligible voters abroad, and the incident when around 19,000 EU resident citizens (constituting the vast majority) were struck off the Electoral Register in the 2009 EP elections. The first issue is a long-standing debate on the current and exclusive policy of in-country voting. This is a discussion which flares up around each election and is specifically prompted by the practice of the last two decades of offering subsidised flights to Maltese citizens resident in Malta but temporarily abroad. This practice is almost perceived as an entitlement or a right by many who feel that it ensures their access to the right to vote. It is, however, a costly practice when one takes into consideration the increasing number of Maltese people abroad and the newfound difficulty of proving that the minimum residence requirement has been met since Malta acceded to the EU and the Schengen area. In addition, one could also argue that the residency requirement is out-dated in the context of EU membership since it clashes with freedom of movement which is one of the fundamental pillars of the EU. The second issue which has arisen over the last years has to do with EU resident citizens' access to electoral rights in Malta. This had to do with the implementation of EU law and apparently procedural issues. EU resident citizens complain of discriminatory practices, that they were struck off the Electoral Register, and were therefore unable to vote in European Parliament elections. This issue has been championed by the Green Party, the smallest and 'youngest' party which has never managed to elect representatives in Parliament. The fact that this issue, and other issues regarding foreigners in Malta, are championed by the Green Party, and not generally by the main parties, is significant in itself and is to no small degree motivated by a vested interest in bringing about change to the traditional political culture. ; Research for the EUDO Citizenship Observatory Country Reports has been jointly supported, at various times, by the European Commission grant agreements JLS/2007/IP/CA/009 EUCITAC and HOME/2010/EIFX/CA/1774 ACIT, by the European Parliament and by the British Academy Research Project CITMODES (both projects co-directed by the EUI and the University of Edinburgh). The financial support from these projects is gratefully acknowledged. ; peer-reviewed