Last year we discussed, in the context of copyright infringement, whether an Internet service provider could be required to block access to a specific web page. The conclusion was that current law did not expressly provide for such measures but attempts to apply them could not be ruled out. But a number of legislative proposals have appeared recently calling for blocking of Internet content that does not infringe copyright.
There are lots of indications that financial technology, or FinTech, is one of the next chapters in the digital revolution unrolling before our eyes.
It has been known for some time that the European Commission plans to extend the EU’s regulations on anti-money laundering and combating of terrorism financing (AML/CTF) to cover digital currencies. In February 2016 the Commission announced that it would present a proposal for changes in law in this area by the middle of the year.
The legislative proposal was presented in July 2016. It may bring about many changes for individuals and firms operating in the area of digital currencies, and perhaps also for those involved in distributed ledger (blockchain) technology.
Recent terrorist attacks have revealed the dark side of new information technologies. Organizers of attacks, or fighters for the “Islamic State,” have ruthlessly exploited the latest communications technologies. For example, according to media reports, terrorists have arranged attacks via PlayStation tools or encrypted instant messaging services. Polish lawmakers decided to respond to this phenomenon by passing the Anti-Terrorism Act of 10 June 2016.
Under Poland’s Criminal Procedure Code, the holder of IT data is required to turn over the data, e.g. concerning the user of a device, at the demand of the competent authorities. But does this apply only to unencrypted data, or also to encrypted data, which to understand would require the holder to decode its own software? Let’s crack this conundrum using the example of the recently publicised American case of Apple Inc.
According to an Advocate General at the Court of Justice, a provider of free WiFi is not responsible for the actions of its users.