ONLINE PROCUREMENT. TECHNOLOGY THINKING AND TECHNOLOGY NEUTRALITY OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21134/lex.vi25.2532Keywords:
Online contracts, artificial intelligence, computational thinking, web applications, technological neutralityAbstract
Legal transactions carried out through online applications are currently a mass phenomenon that requires individualized study. The issue is often approached from a strictly legal perspective, without taking into consideration the extraordinary impact that the underlying technology has on the legislative framework that regulates online contracting. The aim of this paper is to propose reasonable legal answers to several of the major dogmas concerning computational thinking. The vast majority of applications for online contracting are based on traditional algorithms optimized to increase maximum revenue for service providers. Taking this statement as a point of reference, it is appropriate to review the concept of technological neutrality and reconsider the position to be adopted by lawmakers in the face of the advance of ICTs.
Downloads
References
ARISTÓTELES. (Siglo IV, antes de Cristo.). Retórica. (T. 1. Calvo Martínez, Trad.) Madrid: Gredos.
BARRIO ANDRÉS, M. (2019). Derecho de los Robots (Segunda ed.). Madrid: Wolters Kluwer.
BENGIO, Y., COURVILLE, A., & GOODFELLOW, I. (2016). Deep Learning. Adaptative computation and machine Learning. CAMBRIDGE, MASACHUSETS: MIT PRESS.
CULELL MARC, C. (2010). El principio de neutralidad tecnológica y de servicios en la UE: la liberalización del espectro radioeléctrico. IDP. Revista de los Estudios de Derecho y Ciencia Política de la UOC.(11).
DENNETT, D. (2015). Bombas de intuición y otras herramientas del pensamiento. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
COMISIÓN EUROPEA (1999). Documento 51999DC0539. Comunicación de la Comisión al Consejo, al Parlamento Europeo, al Comité Económico y Social y al Comité de las Regiones Hacia un nuevo marco para la infraestructura de comunicaciones electrónicas y los servicios asociados Revisión d.
FISCHER , J. M., KANE, R., PEREBOOM, D., & VARGAS, M. (2013). Cuatro perspectivas sobre la libertad. (I. Echevarría , G. Polit, & R. Restrepo, Trads.) Madrid: Marcial Pons.
FUENTES BARASI, C. (2010). Maquinaria computacional e inteligencia. Obtenido de http://xamanek.izt.uam.mx/map/cursos/Turing-Pensar.pdf
HUGHES, T. (1978). Inventors: The Problems they Choose, the Ideas they Have and the Inventions they Make. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge., 166-182.
KOOPS, B. (2006). Should ICT Regulation be Technology-Neutral. En B. J. KOOPS, M. LIPS, C. PRINS, & M. SCHELLEKENS, Starting Points for ICT Regulation: deconstructing prevalent policy one-liners (pág. 77 y ss). LA HAYA: TMC ASSER PRESS.
KRANZBERG, M. (1986). Kranzberg's Law Technology and Culture. Technology and History, 27(3), 544-560. doi:10.2307/3105385
KRESSE, J. (1987). Privacy of Conversations Over Cordless and Cellular Telephones: Federal protection under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. 9 GEO MASON UL REV.
PEREBOOM, D. (2001). Living without free will. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
SEARLE, J. (1980). Minds, Brains and Programs. Behavioural and Brain Sciences(3), 417-424.
SEARLE, J. (1992). Intencionalidad. Un ensayo en la filosofía de la mente. (L. M. Villanueva., Trad.) Madrid: Tecnos, S.A.
TURING, A. M. (octubre de 1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind. A quarterly review of psychology and philosophy, LIX(236).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 LEX MERCATORIA JOURNAL
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
