Do algorithms dream of ‘data’ without bodies?

ABSTRACT

The question whether algorithms dream of ‘data’ without bodies is asked with the intention of highlighting the material conditions created by wearables for fitness and health, reveal the underlying assumptions of the platform economy regarding individuals’ autonomy, identities and preferences and reflect on the justifications for intervention under the General Data Protection Regulation. The article begins by highlighting key features of platform infrastructures and wearables in the health and fitness landscape, explains the implications of algorithms automating, what can be described as ‘rituals of public and private life’ in the health and fitness domain, and proceeds to consider the strains they place on data protection law. It will be argued that technological innovation and data protection rules played a part in setting the conditions for the mediated construction of meaning from bodies of information in the platform economy.     

Do generic gTLDs require their own ex ante regulation?

This article reviews ICANN's treatment of applications to create new Top Level Domains based on generic terms (e.g. .book, .motorcycles), reserved for exclusive use by the applicant. It finds little evidence in past domain name history that such registrations represented a risk to competition. Had applicants made abusive use of their domains then existing law would have provided appropriate remedies in any case. Theory suggests that such a novel market was unsuitable for prospective regulatory action and that, by converting potential monopolies into potential cartels, ICANN's action may even have made the competition risk worse.     

Do we need a forensic science teaching network?

The challenging events of the past year have forced those of us working in higher education to adapt our teaching practices to conform to the restrictions put in place. For many this has been an opportunity to take a fresh view of the way material has been delivered in the past, and critically reflect on how it might be delivered in the future. There has been an explosion of innovative ideas and the introduction of support networks such as ‘#RemoteForensicCSI’ to aid with sharing these new innovations and examples of good practice.However, the past year has also helped to highlight a lack of an established network that could support the teaching of forensic science in the UK. Teaching networks within the UK exist for related disciplines, such as the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Higher Education Chemistry Teaching Network, but no network focuses on the teaching challenges specific to forensic science. Such a network could help to address the gap in pedagogical research to help support more effective teaching and give learners the best opportunities possible. This would complement the work of the Chartered Society of Forensic Science including upholding accreditation standards and the existing Link Member Scheme, whilst providing an environment to specifically support the teaching of forensic science. Any network could also look to link with other networks internationally such as the Council of Forensic Science Educators in the USA and identify examples of good practice worldwide that could be used to enhance and inform forensic science teaching in the UK.The teaching of forensic science is multifaceted with a need to strike a balance between practical skills and theoretical knowledge. Like many vocational courses forensic science teaching staff have a diverse range of backgrounds, encompassing both academic and practitioner experience. This results in a range of experiences and approaches to teaching and delivery, creating a fantastic melting pot for ideas, but outlets for sharing these innovative approaches are limited. This article will highlight some of the pedagogical gaps within forensic science teaching and areas that we could learn from. Most importantly, it will issue a clarion call to those working in this area to push for a UK Forensic Teaching Network.     

Who owns our data?

The layman's answer to the question posted in the title to this paper lies in the question itself. The common understanding of people when they talk about information about themselves is that it is indeed “theirs”. Until relatively recently, the law has been content to remain agnostic on the subject. The Common Law in general and English Courts in particular have traditionally avoided philosophical debates about the nature of things, preferring to develop concepts and principles from the results of cases decided on specific facts and circumstances. This approach has been acceptable while we have been winding our way gently up the foothills of the Information Age, but now that we see the towering peak of Big Data standing before us, covered by the ubiquitous Cloud, it is necessary to make a critical examination of some of the basic assumptions which we have hitherto carried with us about the way in which the law should treat rights over personal information. This paper will argue that the correct approach which the law should adopt is a proprietary one. That is to say that the protection of the economic value inherent in personal information should be grounded in property rights acknowledged by the law.     

Selective justice,genetic discrimination,and insurance: should we single out genes in our laws?

This article discusses the desirability of legislation focusing on genetic discrimination, in particular in the context of insurance. Many American states and some European countries as well as the Council of Europe have introduced protective measures against discrimination on the basis of genetic susceptibility. The author questions their effectiveness and queries whether they may be inequitable, because they fail to address more fundamental underlying issues related to the nature of insurance, access to health care, and unequal distribution of wealth. There is also a problem of definition in these statutes. They fail to capture what constitutes genetic information. Nonetheless, the author argues it is important to consider the social consequences of genetic testing. Michael Walzer's theory of justice is used to examine the role of insurance and health care. Using this approach, the author finds the American system of distribution for health care to be problematic. This is then used to inform the author's discussion of the future of health care in Canada. Anti-discrimination provisions could be used in a way that is consistent with Walzer's theory of justice. They would encompass both genetic and non-genetic health factors. These can be modelled on current anti-discrimination statutes in Canada. The author then proposes administrative committee structures to regulate the use of genetic data in Canada.     

Do cities influence co-offending?

The nexus between urbanity and crime is interpreted as being congruent with either social breakdown or subculture theory. Each of these perspectives offers differing conceptualizations of the causal mechanisms responsible for this linkage, but adjudicating between them has proven exceedingly difficult because their respective predictions are similar. Each theory posits that an urban environment amplifies criminal activity. Using data derived from the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), this study contributes to the literature by investigating whether urbanization influences co-offending behavior. The determination of whether urbanity affects co-offending has theoretical relevance because social breakdown theory argues that urbanity produces interpersonal estrangement that impedes the development of friendship networks needed to facilitate group-based criminal offending. Conversely, subculture theory postulates that an urban environment propagates deviant subcultures that act to engender group-based rather than individualist criminality. Multivariate regression results furnish evidence supporting social breakdown theory by demonstrating that urbanity decreases co-offending behavior.     

Juvenile sex offenders: a group on its own?

There is some debate about whether sex offenders are similar to non-sex offenders. It is known that sex and non-sex offenders are heterogeneous groups. Comparative studies must take this heterogeneity into account. Based on an aggregated database, a study was conducted among adjudicated juvenile (sex) offenders. The sample consisted of juvenile male sex and non-sex offenders who had been subjected to a psychological assessment at the request of the judge or district attorney. The central question focused on the differences between juvenile sex offenders, in particular rapists and sexual assaulters (n = 57), child molesters (n = 55), and non-sex offenders: violent (n = 85) and nonviolent offenders (n = 80). The results demonstrated that sex offenders differ from non-sex offenders with regard to demographic characteristics, problem behavior, and personality traits. Some reference is made regarding future research.     

Do academic spinoffs internationalize?

Universities are key actors within the entrepreneurial ecosystems. A positive spillover of their knowledge creation and dissemination activity is the establishment of academic spinoffs. This study is one of the first to investigate the post-entry internationalization of academic spinoffs in terms of international sales. Adopting a conditional difference-in-differences approach, we matched a sample of 508 Italian academic spinoffs established between 1999 and 2014 with 404 comparable non-academic innovative start-ups. We find that university spinoffs are more prone to internationalize than their non-academic counterparts. This result is intrinsic to their affiliation with universities but is also related to the degree of internationalization of the parent university. A two-stage Heckman procedure confirms indeed that university internationalization translates into the internationalization of their spinoffs. This study contributes to different streams of literature, ranging from entrepreneurial ecosystems to academic entrepreneurship and internationalization literature due to the academic spinoffs’ nature of being a phenomenon at the confluence of several research fields.

     

Do trials have real winners?

Conclusion In this paper, narrative coherence has been looked at as an institutional strategy in anticipation of the verdict rather than in retrospect of the crime or charge. The analysis of binary notions has been instrumental in the reconstruction of the coherence between the narrative(s) and the theoretical outcomes of the criminal trial. As the abstraction and polarisation of narrative versions focus on the achievement of professional consensus, the verdict, which is almost always based on the selection of a binary option does injustice to any narrative which is unfolded in the court-room. Whether the defendant is acquitted or convicted, therefore, does not make him a winner or a loser, as his personal experience is abducted and institutionalised for the facilitation of smooth institutional decision-making.     

Do Juries Meet Our Expectations?

Surveys of public opinion indicate that people have high expectations for juries. When it comes to serious crimes, most people want errors of convicting the innocent (false positives) or acquitting the guilty (false negatives) to fall well below 10%. Using expected utility theory, Bayes' Theorem, signal detection theory, and empirical evidence from detection studies of medical decision making, eyewitness testimony, and weather forecasting, we argue that the frequency of mistakes probably far exceeds these tolerable levels. We are not arguing against the use of juries. Rather, we point out that a closer look at jury decisions reveals a serious gap between what we expect from juries and what probably occurs. When deciding issues of guilt and/or punishing convicted criminals, we as a society should recognize and acknowledge the abundance of error.     

Jail Calls: What Do Kids Have to Do with It?

For many domestic violence victims, witness tampering continues throughout an abuser’s detention while awaiting court appearance and sentencing, often via phone calls made from jail. A common question we are asked when leading an investigation and providing expert testimony is how abusers involve their children (directly or indirectly) during jail calls. In this commentary, we use three case examples to illustrate how abusers involve their children (directly or indirectly) to further manipulate and tamper with their victim. As the three case examples illustrate, domestic abusers tend to use similar strategies with children during the jail calls as they do with their primary victim (e.g., minimizing the abuse, calling up images of a broken family due to impending charges and sentencing), and tend to triangulate their children against the victim.