Interessante procedimento: i terms of use delle piattaforme inibiscono, tra il resto, la libertà di ricerca (in particolare le attività di scraping) ed espressione e di conseguenza impediscono la verifica del comportamento legittimo degli algoritmi, favorendo la big data discrimination. Attaccata, tra il resto, anche la real name policy. Potrebbe avere conseguenze anche da noi, visto che raramente i ToS sono adattati ai diversi contesti giuridici. Mi sbaglio? I link: <https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-challenges-law-preventing-studies-big-data-di...> <https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-challenges-computer-crimes-law-th...> <https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/sandvig-v-lynch-complaint> Qualche estratto dal complaint: [...] Plaintiffs are injured because they are placed in the position of either refraining from conducting their research, testing, or investigations—all of which constitute constitutionally-protected speech or expressive activity, or conduct necessarily antecedent to such speech or expressive activity—or of exposing themselves to the risk of prosecution under the Challenged Provision. Refraining from conducting their research, testing, or investigations constitutes self-censorship and a loss of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. [...] Plaintiffs also wish to use websites for research purposes and to have the option of subsequently publishing the findings of their research, even when website terms of service do not allow doing so. However, the Challenged Provision renders such activities criminal. 148. The Challenged Provision’s broad delegation of criminal regulation to private parties also impairs the First Amendment rights of many other people. 149. Terms of service, including those on social media websites, often require that users provide their real names when creating accounts, as is the case with seven of the ten housing websites and all of the employment websites listed in paragraph 71 of this Complaint. By criminalizing any violation of these rules, the Challenged Provision chills a broad range of important expressive activity. Members of marginalized groups, or victims of abuse and harassment, may seek to operate pseudonymously online in order to protect themselves. For example, real name policies chill the speech of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals who wish to keep this aspect of their identities private or separate from their offline lives, and they chill the speech of victims of domestic violence who would speak online but for fear of response from abusers. Transgender individuals whose legal names do not reflect their gender identities may be deterred from speaking online under such policies. Critics of employers, governments, or other powerful actors may desire the safeguard from retribution that pseudonymity provides. Artists, writers, and others engaged in creative expression often desire pseudonymity, and some forms of satire, such as fictional Twitter accounts, depend upon misrepresenting the user’s identity. The Challenged Provision criminalizes violations of websites’ real name policies, chilling this entire range of constitutionally protected activity.