research.bib

@article{abbe2012privacy,
  title={Privacy-preserving methods for sharing financial risk exposures},
  author={Abbe, Emmanuel A and Khandani, Amir E and Lo, Andrew W},
  journal={American Economic Review},
  volume={102},
  number={3},
  pages={65--70},
  doi={https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.3.65},
  year={2012}
}

% Data Economy
@article{DataEconomyValueOfData,
title = {Infonomics and the Value of Information in the Digital Economy},
journal = {Procedia Economics and Finance},
volume = {23},
pages = {738-743},
year = {2015},
note = {2nd GLOBAL CONFERENCE on BUSINESS, ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT and TOURISM},
issn = {2212-5671},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00423-2},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115004232},
author = {L.F. Garifova},
keywords = {Infonomics, information, enterprise, asset, value, data.},
abstract = {Globalization and integrated development of the economy significantly expands the possibilities of business. The world has entered a new digital epoch: here the activity of the organizations is mainly in the production and use of information technologies and accumulated information to make all other forms of production more efficient and thereby ensure a new quality of economic growth, and creating greater wealth of information (information products and services). Distinctive feature of a new science “infonomics” is: information obtains a measurable economic value and other features that qualify it as any other kind of asset, significant strategic, operational and financial reasons to do so exist. It is noteworthy that the information may meet accounting standards, but nevertheless it is not reflected in any public balance sheet of a company. Based on the data obtained during the research the author comes to the conclusion that the era of major information transformations in order to remain competitive and profitable, management of the enterprises must learn to use the information of their companies to create new products and services or even a new market. The results of the study expand the notion of infonomics: shows the methods of accounting information as well as factors affecting the information assets and their economic value, noted that infonomics it is a discipline that deals with the determination of the value of information, however, at present this phenomenon raises more questions than it answers, but the more interesting it becomes his study.}
}

@article{DataEconomyCitzenConsumer,
title = {The data economy: How technological change has altered the role of the citizen-consumer},
journal = {Technology in Society},
volume = {59},
pages = {101157},
year = {2019},
issn = {0160-791X},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101157},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X19300569},
author = {Minna Lammi and Mika Pantzar},
abstract = {Citizenship and consumption have been linked for over a century, emphasizing the pivotal role played by the citizen-consumer in society as a whole, and the voting power of the consumer's money. In the modern, digitalized world of the data economy, citizen-consumers are being assigned new roles: active market party, content producer, distributor, and an important source of economic value formation. This article examines how the role of the citizen-consumer is transforming in the data economy, giving a simplified account of historical continuities and discontinuities. We concentrate on the commercial side of consumer citizenship, scrutinizing two periods in the history of technology: first, the 1930s–40s when the mobile citizen-consumer was invented, designed, and promoted by the US car industry; and second, the post-1990s when an even greater sense of mobility was introduced by cell phones and the Internet, drawing examples from outlying yet technologically advanced Finland. We close with a discussion of how the digital turn has given citizen-consumers new channels of operations, querying how technological change has influenced their everyday lives.}
}

@incollection{competitionDigitalMarkets,
  title={Competition in digital markets},
  author={Ghosh, Shubha},
  booktitle={Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Digital Technologies},
  year={2020},
  publisher={Edward Elgar Publishing}
}


% Data as an asset
@article{DataAssetValuation,
author = {Kean Birch and DT Cochrane and Callum Ward},
title ={Data as asset? The measurement, governance, and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech},
journal = {Big Data \& Society},
volume = {8},
number = {1},
pages = {20539517211017308},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1177/20539517211017308},

URL = { 
        https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211017308
    
},
eprint = { 
        https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211017308
    
}
,
    abstract = { Digital personal data is increasingly framed as the basis of contemporary economies, representing an important new asset class. Control over these data assets seems to explain the emergence and dominance of so-called “Big Tech” firms, consisting of Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google/Alphabet, and Facebook. These US-based firms are some of the largest in the world by market capitalization, a position that they retain despite growing policy and public condemnation—or “techlash”—of their market power based on their monopolistic control of personal data. We analyse the transformation of personal data into an asset in order to explore how personal data is accounted for, governed, and valued by Big Tech firms and other political-economic actors (e.g., investors). However, our findings show that Big Tech firms turn “users” and “user engagement” into assets through the performative measurement, governance, and valuation of user metrics (e.g., user numbers, user engagement), rather than extending ownership and control rights over personal data per se. We conceptualize this strategy as a form of “techcraft” to center attention on the means and mechanisms that Big Tech firms deploy to make users and user data measurable and legible as future revenue streams. }
}

% Data Ownership
@article{DataOwnershipBigTechAccessControl,
author = {Barbara Prainsack},
title ={Logged out: Ownership, exclusion and public value in the digital data and information commons},
journal = {Big Data \& Society},
volume = {6},
number = {1},
pages = {2053951719829773},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1177/2053951719829773},

URL = { 
        https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719829773
    
},
eprint = { 
        https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719829773
    
}
,
    abstract = { In recent years, critical scholarship has drawn attention to increasing power differentials between corporations that use data and people whose data is used. A growing number of scholars see digital data and information commons as a way to counteract this asymmetry. In this paper I raise two concerns with this argument: First, because digital data and information can be in more than one place at once, governance models for physical common-pool resources cannot be easily transposed to digital commons. Second, not all data and information commons are suitable to address power differentials. In order to create digital commons that effectively address power asymmetries we must pay more systematic attention to the issue of exclusion from digital data and information commons. Why and how digital data and information commons exclude, and what the consequences of such exclusion are, decide whether commons can change power asymmetries or whether they are more likely to perpetuate them. }
}

% Privacy and Regulation
@article{DataPower,
author = {Orla Lynskey},
doi = {doi:10.1515/til-2019-0007},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2019-0007},
title = {Grappling with “Data Power”: Normative Nudges from Data Protection and Privacy},
journal = {Theoretical Inquiries in Law},
number = {1},
volume = {20},
year = {2019},
pages = {189--220},
lastchecked = {2022-07-06}
}

@inproceedings{dwork2008differential,
  title={Differential privacy: A survey of results},
  author={Dwork, Cynthia},
  booktitle={International conference on theory and applications of models of computation},
  pages={1--19},
  year={2008},
  organization={Springer}
}

@article{li2020federated,
  title={Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions},
  author={Li, Tian and Sahu, Anit Kumar and Talwalkar, Ameet and Smith, Virginia},
  journal={IEEE Signal Processing Magazine},
  volume={37},
  number={3},
  pages={50--60},
  year={2020},
  publisher={IEEE}
}

@incollection{lindell2005secure,
  title={Secure multiparty computation for privacy preserving data mining},
  author={Lindell, Yehida},
  booktitle={Encyclopedia of Data Warehousing and Mining},
  pages={1005--1009},
  year={2005},
  publisher={IGI global}
}

@inproceedings{di2007data,
  title={A data outsourcing architecture combining cryptography and access control},
  author={Di Vimercati, Sabrina De Capitani and Foresti, Sara and Jajodia, Sushil and Paraboschi, Stefano and Samarati, Pierangela},
  booktitle={Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Computer security architecture},
  pages={63--69},
  year={2007}
}

% value of data
@article{industrialPolicyDataDriven,
  title={Rethinking industrial policy for the data-driven Economy},
  author={Ciuriak, Dan},
  journal={Available at SSRN 3223072},
  year={2018}
}

@article{vectorsOfDigitalTransformation,
  title={Vectors of digital transformation},
  author={OECD},
  journal={OECD Digital Economy Papers n. 273},
  year={2019}
}

@article{CeramicNetwork,
title = {Ceramic Protocol Specification},
year = {2022},
publisher = {3Box Labs},
url = {https://github.com/ceramicnetwork/ceramic/blob/main/SPECIFICATION.md},
}

@article{OceanProtocol,
title = {Ocean Protocol: Tools for the Web3 Data Economy},
year = {2022},
publisher = {Ocean Protocol Foundation},
url = {https://oceanprotocol.com/tech-whitepaper.pdf},
}

% InternetColsolidation
@article{ConsolitdationWeb,
author = {Doan, Trinh Viet and van Rijswijk-Deij, Roland and Hohlfeld, Oliver and Bajpai, Vaibhav},
title = {An Empirical View on Consolidation of the Web},
year = {2022},
issue_date = {August 2022},
publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
volume = {22},
number = {3},
issn = {1533-5399},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3503158},
doi = {10.1145/3503158},
abstract = {The majority of Web content is delivered by only a few companies that provide Content Delivery Infrastructuress (CDIss) such as Content Delivery Networkss (CDNss) and cloud hosts. Due to increasing concerns about trends of centralization, empirical studies on the extent and implications of resulting Internet consolidation are necessary. Thus, we present an empirical view on consolidation of the Web by leveraging datasets from two different measurement platforms. We first analyze Web consolidation around CDIs at the level of landing webpages, before narrowing down the analysis to a level of embedded page resources. The datasets cover 1(a) longitudinal measurements of DNS records for 166.5 M Web domains over five years, 1(b) measurements of DNS records for Alexa Top 1 M over a month and (2) measurements of page loads and renders for 4.3 M webpages, which include data on 392.3 M requested resources. We then define CDIs penetration as the ratio of CDI-hosted objects to all measured objects, which we use to quantify consolidation around CDIs. We observe that CDI penetration has close to doubled since 2015, reaching a lower bound of 15% for all .com, .net, and .org Web domains as of January 2020. Overall, we find a set of six CDIss to deliver the majority of content across all datasets, with these six CDIss being responsible for more than 80% of all 221.9 M CDI-delivered resources (56.6% of all resources in total). We find high dependencies of Web content on a small group of CDIss, in particular, for fonts, ads, and trackers, as well as JavaScript resources such as jQuery. We further observe CDIss to play important roles in rolling out IPv6 and TLS 1.3 support. Overall, these observations indicate a potential oligopoly, which brings both benefits but also risks to the future of the Web.},
journal = {ACM Trans. Internet Technol.},
month = {feb},
articleno = {70},
numpages = {30},
keywords = {centralization, consolidation, Web, content delivery}
}

@article{ConsolitdationInternetEconomy,
title = {Consolidation in the Internet Economy},
year = {2019},
publisher = {Internet Society},
address = {Reston, VA, USA},
url = {https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/InternetSociety-GlobalInternetReport-ConsolidationintheInternetEconomy.pdf},
keywords = {centralization, consolidation, Web, content delivery}
}


@misc{auxier_americans_2019,
	title = {Americans and {Privacy}: {Concerned}, {Confused} and {Feeling} {Lack} of {Control} {Over} {Their} {Personal} {Information}},
	shorttitle = {Americans and {Privacy}},
	url = {https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/},
	abstract = {Majorities of U.S. adults believe their personal data is less secure now, that data collection poses more risks than benefits, and that it is not possible to go through daily life without being tracked.},
	language = {en-US},
	urldate = {2022-07-12},
	journal = {Pew Research Center: Internet, Science \& Tech},
	author = {Auxier, Brooke and Rainie, Lee and Anderson, Monica and Perrin, Andrew and Kumar, Madhu and Turner, Erica},
	month = nov,
	year = {2019},
}

@article{SANTANA2022121806,
title = {Blockchain and the emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): An integrative model and research agenda},
journal = {Technological Forecasting and Social Change},
volume = {182},
pages = {121806},
year = {2022},
issn = {0040-1625},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121806},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522003304},
author = {Carlos Santana and Laura Albareda},
keywords = {DAO, Blockchain, Decentralized autonomous organizations, Human–machine agency, Collective action, Token},
abstract = {Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are blockchain-based organizations fed by a peer-to-peer (P2P) network of contributors. Their management is decentralized without top executive teams and built on automated rules encoded in smart contracts, and their governance works autonomously based on a combination of on-chain and off-chain mechanisms that support community decision-making. A growing body of literature has emerged exploring DAOs. However, there is a considerable lack of clarity about this organizational design and its theoretical conceptualization. To this end, we undertake an integrative literature review that reveals three main principles—decentralized, automated and autonomous organizations—and the following four theoretical perspectives mainly adopted to examine this novel organizational form: transaction cost theory, institutions for collective action, agency theory, and socio-materiality. By extending these theories, we propose an integrative model of DAO for research and theory building. Our contribution provides conceptual clarity and proposes a framework for future research directions.}
}

@Inbook{Politou2022,
author="Politou, Eugenia
and Alepis, Efthimios
and Virvou, Maria
and Patsakis, Constantinos",
title="State-of-the-Art Technological Developments",
bookTitle="Privacy and Data Protection Challenges in the Distributed Era",
year="2022",
publisher="Springer International Publishing",
address="Cham",
pages="69--91",
abstract="In the previous chapter we analysed the impact of implementing the GDPR, and in particular the RtbF, in established IT environments and business processes. However, two advanced technological trends of our times used increasingly nowadays for storing and processing personal data, have been emerged in parallel and independently of the GDPR: the ubiquitous mobile computing and the decentralized p2p networks. The revolution of sensor capabilities embedded into the latest smartphones and the rapid evolution of machine learning algorithms have paved the way towards the recent advancements in mobile computing and sensing. At the same time, the re-introduction of decentralization nowadays is demonstrated by the boom of the blockchain and decentralized file storage and sharing networks such as the IPFS. Notwithstanding the unquestionable benefits that these state-of-the-art technologies bring to our daily lives and to our society, they simultaneously pose great risks to our privacy and data protection rights. Before proceeding in investigating the relevant privacy threats and how these technologies can comply with the GDPR principles in the next chapters, we present and examine hereafter the main characteristics and properties of the ubiquitous mobile computing and two commonly used decentralized p2p networks, the blockchain and the IPFS.",
isbn="978-3-030-85443-0",
doi="10.1007/978-3-030-85443-0_5",
url="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85443-0_5"
}


% lack of privacy
@article{FacebookDoesntKnow,
title = {Facebook Doesn’t Know What It Does With Your Data, Or Where It Goes: Leaked Document},
year = {2022},
publisher = {Vice},
address = {49 S 2nd St, Brooklyn },
url = {https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvmke/facebook-doesnt-know-what-it-does-with-your-data-or-where-it-goes},
}