2 Mapping the legal landscape of information law in times of crisis
Olga Kokoulina, Anja MĂžller Pedersen and Jens Schovsbo
DOI: 10.4324/9781003176848-4
Introduction
The ongoing pandemic has touched nearly every corner of the world, bringing communities to a state of a prolonged health and humanitarian crisis. While reshaping the daily routines of individuals, the crisis has also provided challenges for national governments. Struggling to offer a rapid and effective response, they resorted to a range of long-established policy tools and mechanisms in a bid to stop the spread of the disease. As the number of cases ebbs and flows throughout the course of the pandemic, the expectations that data-driven and technology-aided solutions can, and should, be available to overcome the crisis have stood uniformly high. In stark contrast with fighting the plague in the Middle Ages, there is no principal shortage of statistical knowledge, data processing capacity or predictive modelling potential. Consequently, respective public health decisions â such as home confinements, border closures, curfews and the like â need not be universally contingent on the exertion of the âdisciplinary power of the stateâ. Instead, humanity should have been benefitting from data-powered decision-making, democratisation of technology, advancement of âopen scienceâ and collaborative innovative practices. Combined, these measures and initiatives should have ensured that we fared through the pandemic and managed health crises, if not better, then at least differently.1 Despite the unprecedented theoretical potential, however, the promises of a data-powered crisis governance have yet to be delivered. While the communities throughout the globe are still at a crossroads with the pandemic, there is no better time to take stock of what the legal landscape of information law looks like. In finding out the lie of the land in this area, the present contribution pursues two goals. It first seeks to unpack the complexity of overlapping data landscape structures that moderate the flow of data in times of crisis. It then identifies some normative connections and âflexibility conduitsâ that could be used to bridge the gap between the expectations of data-driven crisis management and the reality of going forward.
We start by briefly introducing information law as a primary field of enquiry. Focusing on attributes of âinformationâ and âcrisisâ, in Section 2 we explore the potential data needs that the state of health pandemic poses. We then, in Section 3, describe the patterns and configurations of the legal landscape through the categories of distinct legal regimes such as data protection law, copyright, database and patent law. In presenting this catalogue of rights, we focus, first and foremost, on their afforded scope of protection and embedded legal âflexâ mechanisms that could be utilised to bolster and improve the data-powered crisis management. Lastly, we discuss the identified communalities and differences across the surveyed protection models and offer some concluding remarks.
Information law
The ongoing crisis placed a spotlight on the intricate landscape of overlapping, curbing patterns of legal protection regimes modulating the access and use of information. As an object of regulation, âinformationâ itself is notoriously difficult to define. It has myriad meanings in various disciplines and contexts, so that its conceptual contours often appear fluid and unstable.2 In statutory provisions, for example, its basic properties such as âdataâ and âinformationâ are routinely referred to, albeit rarely comprehensively â if at all â defined.3 The respective choice of certainty has evident advantages and costs. Thus, on the one hand, the lack of analytical clarity and precision necessarily obscures the boundaries of protected subject matter.4 Admittedly, a more calibrated and comprehensive articulation of the terms in legislation would have reinforced its instructive authority and contributed to legal certainty.5 On the other hand, a legislative preference for not providing exhaustive definitions and interpretations of existing legal categories is also a manifestation of pragmatic flexibility. In other words, it is not necessarily an indication of regulatory deficiency, and can also be approached as an intended legislative choice for introducing an optimal and âfutureproofâ solution.6
Thus, the âinformation lawâ space is surrounded by flexible and reconfigurable walls. Their adjustable design stems from the interplay of factors related, but not limited, to the philosophical underpinnings,7 the political dynamics in existence8 and economic qualities of information as such.9 Further, within these regulatory walls, one is met with a complex topography of distinct legal protection regimes. Their boundaries and positioning are by no means fixed, owing to the ongoing discussion and negotiation on how to strike a balance between the interests of distinct stakeholders involved in the dilemma. The time of the crisis brings its own dynamics to this tussle by questioning, revisiting and ultimately reconfiguring the contours of protection models. Above all, the crisis is an opposite of normalcy. It further requires immediate actions to be taken due to its potential to be a serious and direct danger to the health of the human population.10 Naturally, this perspective brings to the fore the âpopulationâ as a focal point of actions and concerns. This focus is grounded on recognition that âpopulation strategyâ helps to address the underlying causes in a mobilised and more efficient way. It proposes a convenient vantage point to explore the synergy potential to enable tackling the crisis at the broadest community level.