SCRIPTed April 2012

This is the first issue of the 9th volume of SCRIPTed, A Journal of Law and Technology. I can’t believe that I’ve been doing it for 9 years! Thanks to the editing team for another good issue.

Issue DOI: 10.2966/scrip.090112

Cover

  • Circuit Board
    Michelle Andresson
    From the author: “The circuit board was photographed using natural light and a macro lens to show the detail. As a photographer, I prefer to use natural light where possible. I’m inspired by everyday images. Seeing something quirky within a normal looking scenario.”

Editorial

  • The Supreme Court of Canada and Emerging Technologies
    The Honourable Justice Thomas A Cromwell,
    pp.1-6
    This is a revised text of a lecture sponsored by AHRC/SCRIPT in the School of Law, University of Edinburgh, 28 February 2011.

Reviewed Articles

  • Governance and Nanotechnology Developments: A Focus on the Health Sector in India
    Manish Anand, Nidhi Srivastava and Shilpanjali Deshpande Sarma, pp.7-24
    To harness the limitless opportunities of nanotechnology applications in the health sector, it would be imperative to develop nanotechnology in a responsible way. This paper focuses on applications of nanotechnology in health care and medicine in India, first describing the main research and developments therein and then analysing the policy issues. Although a specific nanotechnology regulation does not currently exist, there is a whole range of regulatory instruments that do and will extend to the nanotechnology applications in India. This paper discusses the regulatory adequacy and capacity of these instruments to address the concerns emanating from nanotechnology development in the health sector in India. The main challenges pertaining to nanotechnology regulation  relate to regulatory capacity, information asymmetry, inter-agency coordination, and overlapping roles and mandates. Responsible governance of nanotechnology would entail the democratisation of the governance process by way of facilitating dialogue and learning across state and non-state actors and the industry needs to be an integral part of this.
  • Data Export Cloud Computing – How can Personal Data be Transferred Outside the EEA? The Cloud of Unknowing, Part 4
    W Kuan Hon  and Christopher Millard, pp.25-63
    The lack of clarity and harmony across European Economic Area (“EEA”) Member States of the data export rules under the European Union (“EU”) Data Protection Directive (“DPD”) gives rise to significant uncertainties relating to the use of cloud computing. The concepts of transfer and data location are especially problematic. An intense and narrow focus on data location made sense when data could be transported between countries only by physically carrying storage media across borders. With the inception of the Internet and the ease of remote access to data, the concept of “location” is increasingly meaningless as well as irrelevant to data protection.
    The Directive’s focus on data location should not obscure the underlying purpose of the data export restriction, namely data protection. The specific objective of this restriction was, and remains, to protect personal data against access by unauthorised persons (and unauthorised use, which depends on access). Where data are strongly encrypted and the decryption keys securely managed, the data’s location should be irrelevant. Even if such encrypted data are stored outside the EEA, unauthorised persons would not be able to access the data in intelligible form without the key. Conversely, keeping data within the EEA does not guarantee better protection where data are stored unencrypted (or only weakly encrypted).
    In this paper, we argue that the focus should be on restricting unauthorised access to intelligible data, rather than restricting data export. We suggest that the data export restriction should be replaced by requirements regarding accountability, transparency and security.

Analysis

  • Informal Debate on the Issues Relating to Terminology and Clarification of Concept in Respect of the EU e-Signature Legislation
    Stephen Mason, pp.64-85
    The aim of this paper is to provide a high level analysis of (i) the three forms of electronic signature addressed by the Directive, “simple”, “advanced” and “qualified”; (ii) the definition of “the signatory”; (iii) the definition of “secure signature-creation-devices” (SSCDs), and (iv) the meaning of “e-Signature in the public sector”, incorporating definitions of legal terminology from a number of Member States that has led to different terminology or to different effects in the implementation of the eSignature Directive.
    Consideration is also given to the different solutions advanced at national level, and how these might constitute best (or worst) practices to be taken into account at European level.
    The paper provides critical views on the definitions and offers a commentary on the advantages and drawbacks of the current Directive. It highlights other possible options and proposals, and provides suggestions for improvement while assessing the consequences of these suggestions for the future of e-Signature and of the IAS framework as a whole.

Reports

  • Open Science & Regulation Of The Use Of Stem Cells: Results Of Script International Roundtable Workshop
    Carol George, pp.86-98
  • The Mason Institute
    Nayha Sethi, pp.99-101

Book Reviews

  • Emerging Values In Health Care: The Challenge For Professionals
    By Stephen Pattison, Ben Hannigan, Roisin Pill and Huw Thomas (eds)
    Reviewed by Shawn H E Harmon, pp.102-104
  • Innovation Without Patents: Harnessing The Creative Spirit In A Diverse World
    By Uma Suthersanen, Graham Dutfield and Kit Boey Chow (eds)
    Reviewed by Aisling McMahon, pp.105-108

Leave a Reply