Digital transformation: The legal dimension

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2019.102

Abstract

The legal dimension of digital transformation is being formed by approaches to the legal regulation of social relationships backed by the interests of its actors: states, businesses and users. The so-called information law as an amorphous institution without its own subject and method was not able to meet the challenges of digital transformation. Effective regulation should be carried out using the method of de facto possibility coinciding with the legal possibility, i. e. subjective right. The issues of personal data as the main “fuel” of the digital economy are discussed between the state and business. This leads to the exclusion of citizens from the discussion due to their lack of resources to defend their own interests. Such resources may be provided only by the introduction of instruments that guarantee responsibility to the data subject for violation of his or her rights. In the area of industrial and other non-personal data, the lack of regulation is more of a factor for the acceleration of market growth. However, there is growing inequality between parties (equipment suppliers and users) in access to data. The right to access one’s own data, as well as the mechanisms of data portability between platforms, should be the tools to protect the interests of users here. Although the interests of the state in the digital sphere are related to ensuring its own sovereignty, attempts to ground certain types of data on information systems located on the territory of the state (“data localization”) contradict the structure of information flows that have undergone a digital transformation. Under these conditions, regulation should take into account the formation of data sets and services online, at a certain point of assembly, which requires freedom of circulation of metadata on the basis of which the assembly is carried out. The perceived needs and interests help to develop the digital economy in the most equitable way, drawing new subjects into the state of agreed interests and, thus, effectively limiting each other’s interests. Governmental regulation being less efficient should be applied as a last resort, only if legal equality cannot be achieved by the efforts of various participants or interaction of market players.

Keywords:

big data, economic concentration, antitrust policy, self-regulation, personal data, interests, digital platforms, digital divide

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

Author Biography

Nikolay A. Dmitrik, Moscow State University

PhD in law

References

References

Bachilo, Illaria L., Lopatin, Vladimir N., Fedotov, Mikhail A. 2005. Information law. St. Petersburg, Iuridicheskii tsentr Press. (In Russian)

Bratus’, Sergei N. 1950. Subjects of civil law. Leningrad, Gosurizdat Publ. (In Russian)

Dmitrik, Nikolay A. 2018. Limits on legal regulation in the digital age. Informatsionnoe obshchestvo 3: 47–58. (In Russian)

Dmitrik, Nikolay A. 2007. Ways of exercising civil rights and executing duties with the use of the Internet. PhD in law thesis. Moscow, Lomonosov Moscow State University. (In Russian)

Elin, Vladimir M., Zharova, Anna K. 2013. On the methodology of information law. Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriia i praktika 4: 133–144. (In Russian)

Gratton, Eloїse. 2013. Understanding Personal Information: Managing Privacy Risks. Canada, Lexis-Nexis.

Gribanov, Veniamin P. 2001. Implementation and protection of civil rights. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)

Kant, Immanuil. 2015. Critique of Pure Reason. Rus. ed. Moscow, EKSMO Publ. (In Russian)

Koelman, Kamiel J., Helberger, Natalie. 2000. Protection of Technological Measures. Copyright and Electronic Commerce. Legal Aspects of Electronic Copyright Management: 165–228. The Hague, Kluwer Law International.

Kuvyrkova, Anastasia Iu. 2010. Exercise of exclusive intellectual and related rights. PhD in Law thesis. Moscow, Lomonosov Moscow State University. (In Russian)

Lassal’, Ferdinand. 2012. On the essence of the Constitution (speech delivered in a Berlin burgher district Assembly in 1862). Voitovich V.Iu. Teoreticheskie osnovy sushchnosti konstitutsii: ucheb. Posobie. Izhevsk, Udmurt University Publ. (In Russian)

Maurer, Stephen M. 2005. Across Two Worlds: Database Protection in the United States and Europe. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228794091_Across_Two_Worlds_Database_Protection_in_the_United_States_and_Europe (accessed: 01.05.2019).

Muskhelishvili, Nikolai L., Sergeev, Viktor M., Shreider, Iulii A. 1996. Value reflection and conflicts in a divided society. Voprosy filosofii 11: 24–36. (In Russian)

Nissenbaum, Helen. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 79 (3): 119–158.

Prokhorov, Aleksandr M., Konik, Leonid G. 2019. Digital transformation: analysis, trends, world experience. Moscow, Al’iansPrint. (In Russian)

Tsarikovskii, Andrei Iu., Ivanov, Aleksei Iu., Voinikanis, Elena A. (eds). 2018. Antitrust regulation in the digital age. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publ. (In Russian)

Voinikanis, Elena A. 2013. Intellectual property law in the digital age: a paradigm of balance and flexibility. Moscow, Iurisprudentsiia Publ. (In Russian)

Zuckerberg, Mark. 2019. Four Ideas to Regulate the Internet. March 30, 2019. URL: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/four-ideas-regulate-internet/ (accessed: 01.05.2019).

Published

01.02.2019

How to Cite

Dmitrik, N. A. . (2019). Digital transformation: The legal dimension. Pravovedenie, 63(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2019.102

Issue

Section

Articles