newtech.law - legal aspects of new technologies

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.

There are lots of indications that financial technology, or FinTech, is one of the next chapters in the digital revolution unrolling before our eyes.

The mobile game Pokémon Go became incredibly popular in just a few days, in Poland and everywhere else. The game uses a technology of augmented reality (AR). With maps and GPS, it overlays computer-generated 3D graphics and sound onto the real world as seen by a smartphone camera. To become a Pokémon trainer, the player has to put on sturdy shoes and head out for a real, live walk through the woods and around the streets.

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.

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.

According to an Advocate General at the Court of Justice, a provider of free WiFi is not responsible for the actions of its users.