Adrian, Angel (USA, UK): Impression Management on Stereoids

Baker, Roger (UK): Global Surveillance & Employee Rights a case study

Cleff, Evelyne Beatric (Germany, Denmark) and King, Nancy J. (USA): NCTA v. FCC: Concerning Consumer Privacy of Personal Information for the Purpose of Mobile Advertising

Harrison, Alexandra and Szczech, Andrew (UK): Kroll Ontrack

Johnson, Maureen (UK) and Rogers, Kevin (UK): Too far down the Yellow Brick Road – Cyber-hysteria and Virtual Porn

Majid, Amir (UK): The New Face of Accessibility of Disabled People to Modern Technology

Nel, Sanette (South Africa): Censorship in cyberspace: To censor or not to censor— that is the question

Reid, Alan (Scotland): A Phorm in a Teacup? Legal Issues Surrounding the Phorm Online Advertising System

Schwartz, Priscilla (UK): Development in World Trade Law

Sivasubramanian, Durga (UK): An Analysis of the Best Regulatory Models for VoIP Regulation

Wei, Weixiao (UK, China): Is ISPs’ Copyright Liability Economic Efficient? :Economic Perspectives of Three Applications of ISPs’ Copyright Liability

Woodhead, Charlotte (UK): The international market in cultural property: restrictions on owners’ property rights and the impact on international trade

Wu, Yu (China, Scotland): What can WTO do for subsidies in upstream oil market?

Impression Management on Stereoids by Angel Adrian, Bournemouth University.


Angel Adrian (BBA , Schiller, London; MIM , Schiller, London, Juris Doctorate, Loyola, Louisiana); LL.M. , Aberdeen; Attorney, State of Louisiana, U.S. District Court for Louisiana; Solicitor, England and Wales ) is a Senior Lecturer at Bournemouth University.


On the internet, as in the real world, we portray ourselves differently to different audiences. The internet, however, has greatly increased our ability to do so. As Joseph B. Walther, a professor of communication and telecommunication at Michigan State University, told the New York Times recently, On-line Social Networking is like “impression management on steroids”. This need for ‘impression management’ has increased dramatically as more people have become ‘browsable’.


Global Surveillance & Employee Rights a case study by Roger Baker, Chaucer Consulting.


Roger Baker, LLM (Strathclyde), FBCS, ACIB, BA.Econ hons, has a career spanning banking & insurance IT systems development, IT management and consultancy, and in recent years financial services regulation and IT Law. A former advisor to UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science & Technology, he established the British Computer Society’s Financial Services Specialist Group, and has contributed to the Society’s publications on Offshore Outsourcing, e-Commerce, the Euro, Year 2000 and Data Protection.  He is affiliated with  IT Finance & Law. Chaucer Consulting.

The presentation will deal with the need to monitor staff activity and ensure their right to personal privacy. It is based on work done in the last 12 months for a global organisation's financial trading wing, across the world. The results were interesting if unexpected in some domains, and highlight the
win:win possibilities.


NCTA v. FCC: Concerning Consumer Privacy of Personal Information for the Purpose of Mobile Advertising by Evelyne Beatrix Cleff and Nancy J.King, Aarhus University and Oregon State University.


Evelyne Beatrix Cleff joined the Department of Law of the Aarhus School of Business (ASB), Aarhus University, Denmark in November 2005 (Affiliate Faculty: College of Business - Oregon State University). After the bachelor study at the Ruhr-Universität-Bochum (Germany) in Economic Science she attended the Master Program in EU Business and Law at the Aarhus School of Business. Since August 2006 Evelyne has been doing her PhD studies with the working title "Advertising Law in mobile Commerce: An Evaluation framework for a Mobile Advertising application in EU and U.S. Law" . Currently, she is also working on a project which analyses the data protection regime in the Faeroe Islands. Her research field covers legal aspects of m-commerce and e-commerce particularly with regard to mobile advertising and data protection



Nancy J.King is an Associate Professor at the College of Business, Oregon State University

Currently pending before a U.S. federal appeals court is a case that is likely to provide much needed insight on the question of whether the federal government may constitutionally regulate the marketing industry to protect consumer personal data by requiring companies to obtain consumers’ advance consent before accessing or using their personal data for marketing purposes. In this case National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) challenges a new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule requiring telephone carriers to obtain customers’ advance approval before releasing their telephone record information for marketing purposes. The NCTA claims the FCC’s new opt-in rule violates companies’ First Amendment right to engage in commercial speech. At stake in this appeal is determining the constitutionally required balance between protecting consumers’ information privacy in an era of pervasive data processing and protecting the rights of marketers to engage in protected commercial free speech that involves using customers’ personal information. A ruling against the FCC would limit the use of government regulation to provide information privacy protections for consumers that increasingly relate to technological advances. A return to the former opt-out rule would be at the expense of consumer privacy since disclosure of telephone record information may reveal substantial information about consumers’ private lives. This article critiques the First Amendment arguments raised in the current case and advocates a new balance that will enable government regulation to protect consumers’ personal data and address privacy risks associated with advances in technology, the complexities of modern information processing and evolving marketing practices.


Kroll Ontrack by Alexandra Harrison and Andrew Szczech, Kroll Ontrack.




Alexandra is a Legal Consultant at Kroll Ontrack in London. Her role is to help law firms, corporate clients and government agencies across Europe understand the electronic
disclosure process and plan how best to locate, collect and review paper, electronic and audio documents in response to litigation, regulatory investigations or internal audits. Ms Harrison studied Classics then Law at Leeds University (LLM) and was called to the Bar of England and Wales in July 2003 (Lincoln’s Inn). She practised as a barrister for four years in London before joining Kroll Ontrack in May 2007.
She has over four years of advocacy experience in the Crown, County and High Court. She was seconded to Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise in 2004.








Andrew Szczech serves as one of Kroll Ontrack’s Electronic Evidence Consultants in the UK. His role is to advise lawyers and their clients on the use of technology in practice. Mr Szczech frequently provides advice and consultancy on the use of technology within electronic legal processes, including the practicalities surrounding them, implications of the services associated with such methods, and scoping multi-regional, document intensive projects. He advises on strategies and techniques to help lawyers deploy technology effectively and responsibly, as well as assisting them in the design of practical workflow processes and in the selection of the technical solutions required to fulfil these goals. Mr Szczech is active in pre-sales and sales activities as well as direct support for Kroll Ontrack’s clients who include law firms, corporate counsel and government agencies. He is called upon for his significant depth, variety and volume of experience within information management processes. Mr Szczech is often consulted on the practicalities of technology used in the collection, processing and review of electronic evidence. Prior to joining Kroll Ontrack, Mr Szczech spent three years within business process, content and electronic document management focused roles. He has worked in IT for over 20 years, both in-house and for solution providers. His main focus has been to ensure clients are able to maximise the use of technology within their organisations.



Too far down the Yellow Brick Road – Cyber-hysteria and Virtual Porn by Maureen Johnson and Kevin Rogers. University of Hertfordshire.

Maureen Johnson LLB LLM, is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the School of Law, University of Hertfordshire.  She lectures on undergraduate and postgraduate courses and undertakes supervision of LLM dissertations, particularly in the fields of criminal and cyberlaw.  She has presented papers at international conferences  and regularly publishes articles on the legal and moral uncertainties of applying criminal law to the new frontier of cyberspace.




Kevin Rogers LLB LLM, is a Senior lecturer in Law at the School of Law, University of Hertfordshire. He lectures on undergraduate and postgraduate courses, specifically on E-Commerce Law and data protection issues, as well as Company Law and Commercial Law. He also co-edits the Hertfordshire Law Journal, which encourages critical contributions that consider international commercial law in its various contexts, across the full spectrum of public and private international law, international trade, cyber law (including e-contracts, e-finance, e-crime and data protection) as well as the wider commercial concerns. Kevin is on the executive committee for BILETA (British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association).

Kevin is a member of the Law Society’s Electronic Law Committee, which offers guidance and advice to the legal profession on developing technology and legislation.

‘Cyberporn’ is one of the great moral panics of our age. Indeed, the development of Web 2.0 and the rapid increase of user generated content has opened the floodgates to the number of pornographic websites available. Everybody is familiar, and most are in agreement with the argument against indecent images of children. Few would argue –none successfully – for the law to go easier on those who produce and circulate such images, but an increasingly complicated legal landscape is in danger of stretching the limits of legislation to include what are essentially drawings of children found online or in virtual communities and criminalise those who produce, possess or view them. This paper will consider the necessary response of the United Kingdom’s legislature to these problems.


The New Face of Accessibility of Disabled People to Modern Technology by Amir Ali Majid, London Metropolitan University.





Dr. (Judge) Amir Ali Majid (BA Punjab ; LLB Hons-LLM , London);DASL, Dip in Air & Spc Law,London Institute of World Affairs);DASL-Dr. of Civil Law, McGill University ; FRSA, Barrister, Lincoln's Inn) is member of the Higher Education Academy, Reader in International Law, London Metropolitan University, Practising Barrister, part-time Immigration Judge and Adjunct Professor in Law, Webster University of USA. Dr. Majid has published a law book and 35 articles in British, German, Dutch and American learned journals, as well as 50 journalistic items. He is the first blind person in the world to be a barrister and DCL (Dr. of Civil Law), the first Asian in the UK to be the Secretary of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK (London Branch), member of the Air Transport Committee of the UK International Chambers of Commerce (inter alia advising the Aviation Minister) and the second blind person in the UK to be appointed to a judicial post, p/t Immigration Judge. He was conferred the Sitara-i-Imtiaz, "Star of Distinction" (the second highest civilian honour in Pakistan in 2003). Dr. Majid is also Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Islamic State Practice in International Law.

In this talk some examples of extraordinary prejudice against disabled people, not forgetting that it is not everyone’s conduct and many good souls bring excellent relief and happiness to those who have their lives made harder by the nuisance of disability, will be spotlighted.  In the rest of this presentation focus will be on pro-disabled laws in the EU and the UK.  Particularly, attention will be given to the employment of disabled people in the realm of new technology.

“With the exception of the US, the immaculate declarations of realizing the goal of accessibility of electronic sources for disabled people, is shocking and results of real progress are not visible.  This is particularly so in the EU which is expected to be a leader in this field.  Whilst thousands of trees are cut to produce tons of paper (multi-lingual translations not ignored) to declare pro-disabled policies, only 3% public websites have become accessible to disabled people.


Censorship in cyberspace: To censor or not to censor— that is the question by Sanette Nel, University of South Africa.


Sanette Nel (BLC, LLB, LLM, LLD) is Professor of Law at the University of South Africa, a member of the Unit for Medicine and Law and Co-director of the Certificate Course in Medicine and Law. She is co-author of Cyberlaw@SA: The Law of the Internet in South Africa, regularly publishes and delivers papers (at national and international conferences) on media law, Internet law, aspects of environmental law and medical law. She acted as assessor in a number of murder trials and is consulted regularly by the media and practitioners on aspects of the law in her field of expertise.

In September 2008 France will be joining at least five other countries where Internet service providers block access to child pornography and content linked to terrorism and racial hatred. Although there is a general sentiment in favour of blocking child pornography, there are also those who question the effectiveness of this tactic. And while most people would agree on the principle of blocking web sites with content linked to “hate speech” and “terrorism,” the main problem lies with defining these terms.

Freedom of expression is a treasured human right, but nowhere in the world has it been assigned an absolute value – restrictions on free speech differ from culture to culture. Although the Internet has benefited the promotion of free speech, the cross border data flow has necessitated a rethinking and re-evaluation of long settled values and outdated regulatory approaches in order to establish a new regulatory framework. This presentaton deals with the problems surrounding censorship on the Internet, various regulatory measures that could be applied, the effectiveness of these measures and the consequences thereof for freedom of expression.

A Phorm in a Teacup? Legal Issues Surrounding the Phorm Online Advertising System by Alan S. Reid, Napier University.


Alan S. Reid is a lecturer in EU law at Napier University, Edinburgh. He lectures on EU law, constitutional law and Information Technology law. He has a particular interest in Competition law, online child protection measures and deployment of RFID technology and has published widely in these fields. He is a member of the Correspondents’ Panel of the Computer Law and Security Report journal and has been a consultant for ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Targeted online marketing is the nirvana of 21st Century commerce. Businesses want to simultaneously limit their marketing spend and achieve higher returns on that marketing spend. The solution? Directed adverts that are specifically tailored to consumers’ surfing habits. Phorm has recently entered this market and offers ISPs the opportunity to direct adverts to their customers.

Any new technology must be rigorously tested to ensure its reliability and commercial viability. However, such testing should be done with the consent of those being subjected to that technology. In the United Kingdom, a trial run of the Phorm technology undertaken by BT in 2007 may have violated UK law on the interception of communications, namely the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), since a select group of BT’s customers were unaware that their internet traffic was being monitored. This trial has raised interesting questions as to the effectiveness of the RIPA enforcement regime generally.

The subsequent commercial deployment of Phorm raises further legal questions. Apart from the questionable legality of the system under RIPA, Phorm may also create legal concerns under the E-privacy Regulations 2003, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Development in World Trade Law by Priscilla Schwartz, University of Leicester.





Priscilla is a Lecturer in Law at University of Leicester, United Kingdom. She lectures on undergraduate and post graduate programmes and supervises Doctoral and other research candidates. She is a graduate of King's College London and Queen Mary, both of University of London with an LLM and PhD, respectively; and of Fourah Bay College University of Sierra Leone, with BA and LLB (Hons). Priscilla is an expert in Public International Law with a good record of publications in journals and scholarly volumes, including a book. She is also a Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of Sierra Leone and has been on several international negotiations, including World Bank Missions and drafting of the Statute and Agreement of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone.She has strong research interest in critical investigations into the formulation, implementation and effectiveness of international law and policy in fields of development, environment and world trade issues, especially how these affect developing countries.
Trade continues to expand at an unprecedented pace under the WTO regime and is considered prime vehicle for development. Yet, there is growing controversy over the cost and benefit of international trade on development as the gap between rich and poor countries continue to widen. This paper aims to ascertain the proper context of development in WTO law and practice. It demonstrates that despite persistent mention of ‘development’, or the several provisions that purport to be in aid of developing countries, there is vagueness and uncertainty in the use, meaning and purpose of development in WTO law. It argues that this definitional anomaly lends the concept or the pursuit of its objectives an uneasy alliance with trade discipline, and thereby with its developing trading partners. It recommends an appreciable definition of development from a trade perspective.
An Analysis of the Best Regulatory Models for VoIP Regulation by Durga V Sivasubramanian, University of Strathclyde.




Ms. Durga V Sivasubramanian is doing her PhD at the Law School of the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Her research relates to the legal challenges of Voice over Internet Protocol services in Telecommunication Law with specific regard to Europe. Ms. Sivasubramanian graduated with an LLM in Information Technology and Telecommunication Law from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow and a Bachelors of Laws from Dr. Ambedkar Law University, India specializing in Intellectual Property Law. She was admitted as an Advocate to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, India in 2004. Ms. Sivasubramanian has presented papers at international conferences and also has a publication in the Computer Law Review International (Cri).
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services has caused what the experts call a paradigm shift in the nature and structure of telecommunication services all over the world. The regulation of VoIP services is one of the most significant challenges facing regulators in both the developed and the developing world’s because it falls between a heavily regulated telecommunication sector and an unregulated internet sector. This paper will first identify and examine the most controversial issues concerning the regulation of VoIP services and also, how they have been addressed so far. The later part of the paper would explore the best regulatory models available for the regulation of VoIP services with specific focus on the European Union and the United Kingdom in comparison to that of the United States of America.
Is ISPs’ Copyright Liability Economic Efficient?: Economic Perspectives of Three Applications of ISPs’ Copyright Liability by Weixiao We, University of Strathclyde.

Ms. Weixiao Wei is a PhD candidate at the Law School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. She graduated from the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom in the field of Intellectual Property Law and had her LLB in the University of Xiang Tan in China. Prior to pursuing her LLM and PhD, she worked in a law firm in China for more than eight years and now she is still an admitted lawyer in China. Ms. Wei has published several articles on intellectual property law and has also presented papers at numbers of international conferences.

For several years, extensive copyright infringements on the Internet have driven many copyright owners to allocate extra time and energy on copyright litigation, as a result, total social costs and negative externalities associated with online copyright infringements have been created. Many courts have been trying to regulate this new problem with several liability regimes open to them; however, strict liability for ISPs which holds ISPs strictly liable is not in line with the nature of ISPs’ fault-based liability and it places all social costs on ISPs, therefore it is very likely to cause over-zealous censorship which would restrain the growth of the Internet and digital technology. No liability for ISPs offers no motivation to ISPs to prevent copyright infringements, but produces incremental social costs and negative externalities; it is therefore also rejected by consensus as an unworkable solution. In the end, ISPs’ copyright liability is adopted by most jurisdictions, for the reason that it has a solid tortuous basis for ISPs’ fault-based liability and the efficiency it has in balancing relevant social benefits and social costs.

Now, ISPs’ liability for copyright infringement is a settled matter in tort law context. As copyright infringement is a tort; copyright liability for harm done to others is accordingly regulated by tort law. Tort law theory not only undergirds a legal ground for ISPs’ copyright liability, it also explains the potential of ISPs’ copyright liability in enhancing efficient allocation of society’s resources. As an important device to redistribute economic wealth or to re-engineer society, tort law provides copyright owners with rights to get the compensation from ISPs, while their protected copyright works are infringed by unlawful acts of numerous individual infringers with assistance of those ISPs. This set of loss (cost) allocation in ISPs’ copyright liability sets efficient incentives for ISPs to take precautions against tortuous acts of their users and enhances an optimal risk allocation between direct copyright infringers and ISPs.

Departing from efficiency aspect of tortuous liability principles, this paper attempts to examine economic efficiency of three applications of ISPs’ copyright liability, including vicarious liability, contributory liability and inducement liability, from an economic point of view. Employing costs and benefits analysis as an economic model with a Hicks-Kaldor efficiency criterion, this paper demonstrates that three applications of ISPs’ copyright liability have done a good job at restraining extensive copyright infringement over Internet technology platform and effectively protecting creative works of copyright owners which ultimately benefit the society.

The international market in cultural property: restrictions on owners’ property rights and the impact on international trade by Charlotte Woodhead, University of Derby.

Charlotte Woodhead (Barrister; LL.B (London); LL.M (London)) is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Derby. Her undergraduate lecturing responsibilities include Property Law and Contract Law and she is module leader for the LL.M modules Law of the Music Industry and the Law of the Art and Antiquities Market. Her work in the field of Cultural Property Law has included working as the Academic Convenor at the Institute of Art and Law and research relating to repatriation of cultural heritage.

The international trade in objects of cultural property is seen as having a public benefit, not least in its role in fostering cultural exchange between nations. In contrast, arguments are frequently put forward relating to the desirability of restricting the trade in order to retain cultural property within source nations. In balancing these (at times conflicting) policies the law has placed various restrictions on the property rights of owners of cultural property. This paper considers two such restrictions and their effects on the international trade in such objects.
What can WTO do for subsidies in upstream oil market? by Yu Wu, University of Aberdeen.


Yu Wu is a PhD candidate at Department of law in University of Aberdeen, UK. She obtained LL.B and master of laws majored in international economic law at China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing, China. She holds a teaching post in China Southwest Jiaotong University, teaching international economic law and WTO course. Her current research interest focuses on WTO rules, especially in the field of subsidies and countervailing measures.

China is the world’s third-largest net importer of oil behind the United States and Japan, an important factor in world oil markets. In 2005, China consumed 6.6 million barrels per day (b/d), less than one-third of the 20.8 million b/d used by the U.S. and 8% of global consumption. China's growing oil demand need not lead to conflict with the rest of the world's energy needs. China's participation in the upstream oil market, in fact, can help increase supplies and lower prices, benefiting all consumers. However, the U.S. criticises the way in which Chinese National Oil Companies (NOCs) compete with other oil companies. Beijing's financial backing including the use of export credits, investment credits and tied aids may distort market-based competition by subsidizing its NOCs. A stronger vehicle for regulating international subsidies could be the WTO. Its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) defines a subsidy as a financial contribution from a government that confers a material benefit on the borrower. It holds that export credit guarantees and insurance programs provided by governments should not be at premium rates inadequate to cover long-term operating costs and losses. This has been interpreted to mean that government backed export financing programs must at least break even. The rules also prohibit governments from offering export credits at rates below their cost of funds in ways that achieves a “material advantage” in export credit terms.State-to-state deals could be challenged if subsidies are found to “cover operating losses sustained by an industry.” In this case, a successful complaint by rival bidders would have to establish that, in practice, the provision of equity at below market rates amounts to assistance by Beijing to cover “operating losses” by China’s NOCs. But proof of a subsidy is not enough. A successful complaint must also show that a subsidy to cover operating losses by an industry inflicted “serious prejudice.” Serious prejudice exists when a subsidy towards a particular product is sufficient to adversely affect the market share of like products of another member. This narrow definition does not seem to cover indirect sweeteners designed to make the investment packages of Chinese NOCs more attractive to recipient countries than those of rival bidders.This paper intends to analyse two issues: how weak does ASCM apply to export credit problem in oil market, and why is OECD a preferable regulation than ASCM in dealing with the subsidies in upstream oil market, and what is the weak point of OECD.