Personal data management and accountability: European regulation, market principles and civic agency strategies

References

• Andrejevic, M. (2011). Surveillance and alienation in the online economy. Surveillance & Society, 8(3), 278–287. doi: 10.24908/ss.v8i3.4164
   Google Scholar
• Arvidsson, A. (2007). Creative class or administrative class? On advertising and the underground. Ephemera, 7(1), 8–23.
   Google Scholar
• Bakir, V. (2015). “Veillant panoptic assemblage”: Mutual watching and resistance to mass surveillance after Snowden. Media and Communication, 3(3), 12–25. doi: 10.17645/mac.v3i3.277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2010). Consumption, prosumption and participatory web cultures: An introduction. York: AP Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, R. (2002). Engineering democracy. Political Studies, 50(1), 102–116. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boucher, D., & Flowerday, S. (2011). Privacy: In pursuit of Information security awareness. ISSA 2011. Information Security South Africa Conference (ISSA), Hyatt Regency Hotel, Rosebank, Johannesburg, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Boyte, H. C. (2005). Reframing democracy: Governance, civic agency, and politics. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 536–546. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00481.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Cavoukian, A. (2009). Privacy by design. Take the challenge. Toronto: Information and privacy commissioner of Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dagnino, E. (2008). Civic driven change and political projects. In A. Fowler, & K. Biekart (Eds.), Civic driven change: Citizen’s imagination in action (pp. 27–49). The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, A. (2017). Symposium on Google search (shopping) decision beyond ‘Hipster Antitrust’. European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, 1(3), 188–192. doi: 10.21552/core/2017/3/4
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, G. (1995). Postscript on control societies. Negotiations, 1972–1990, 177–182.
   Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. doi: 10.1086/231294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Information Society Forum Report. (1999). Connecting to the information society: A European perspective. Stephanidis C., & Emiliani, P. L. Technology and disability, 10(1), 21–44.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1976 [2003]). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. Paris: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C. (2011). Web 2.0, prosumption, and surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 8(3), 288–309. Retrieved from https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/4165/4167 [online] doi: 10.24908/ss.v8i3.4165
   Google Scholar
• González Pascual, M. I. (2014). El TJUE como garante de los derechos en la UE a la luz de la sentencia Digital Rights Ireland. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 49, 943–971.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gürses, S., Troncoso, C., & Diaz, C. (2011). Engineering privacy by design. Leuven: K.U. Leuven/IBBT.
   Google Scholar
• Haggerty, K. D., & Ericsson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622. doi: 10.1080/00071310020015280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hands, J. (2007). Between agonistic and deliberative politics: Towards a radical e-democracy. In Radical democracy and the internet: Interrogating theory and practice (pp. 89–107). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Joas, H. (1996). The creativity of action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, T. (2007). Online direct action: Hacktivism and radical democracy. In Radical democracy and the internet (pp. 73–88). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Kalathil, S., & Boas, T. (2003). Open networks, closed regimes. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
   Google Scholar
• Karatani, K. (2005). Transcritique: On Kant and Marx. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kearney, A. T. (2014). “Rethinking personal data: A new lens for strengthening trust.” In World Economic Forum (Vol. 1). Retrieved from November.
   Google Scholar
• Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance after Snowden. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Malcolm, J. (2008). Multi-stakeholder governance and the internet governance forum. Atlanta: Terminus Press.
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The cyberspace ‘revolution’. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath, J. E. (2004). Loving big brother: Performance, privacy and surveillance space. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Noam, E. (2005). Why the internet is bad for democracy. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 57–58. doi: 10.1145/1089107.1089138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavan, E. (2012). Frames and connections in the governance of global communications: A network study of the internet governance forum. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, S. (2008). Loser generated content: From participation to exploitation. First Monday, (3): 13.
   Google Scholar
• Piñar Mañas, J. L. (2003). El derecho a la protección de Datos de carácter personal en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas. Cuadernos de Derecho Público, (19–20), 61–66.
   Google Scholar
• Raab, C. (2013). Increasing resilience in surveillance societies. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh: IRISS project.
   Google Scholar
• Rubinstein, I. S., & Good, N. (2013). Privacy by design: A counterfactual analysis of Google and Facebook privacy incidents. Berkeley Tech. LJ, (28): 1333.
   Google Scholar
• Schaar, P. (2010). Privacy by design. Identity in the Information Society, 3(2), 267–274. doi: 10.1007/s12394-010-0055-x
   Google Scholar
• Schedler, A. (1999). The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schlembach, R. (2016). Against old Europe: Critical theory and alter-globalization movements. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sphere, R. M. (2011). Los cambios previstos en la Directiva 95/46/CE de protección de datos personales. Datospersonales.org: La revista de la Agencia de Protección de Datos de la Comunidad de Madrid, (50), abril.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2016). Conference on trade and development. Data protection regulations and international data flows: Implications for trade and development, Genève Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitson, J. R. (2013). “Gaming the quantified self”. Surveillance & Society, 11(1/2): 163–176. Retrieved from https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/gaming/gaming [online]
   Google Scholar