Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Laws of Big Data

How Data Protection Law, Competition Law and Contract Law Deal with the Challenges of a Data-Driven World

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Human-Centric Computing in a Data-Driven Society (HCC 2020)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 590))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 814 Accesses

Abstract

This paper presents a selection of legal topics in the context of data analytics and Big Data from a lawyer’s perspective. After introducing the reader to the role of law, both in the analogue and the digital world (1), the paper gives a systematic overview of some of the currently most relevant data-related legal topics (2). While digitalisation and data processing poses new questions to all areas of law, this paper focusses on the role Big Data plays in competition, data protection and contract law, as those are closely interlinked and address similar data-related phenomena. The paper was written from a mainly European perspective and presents some specific approaches European law takes to address the challenges we face with the advent of Big Data.

This work has been funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) under grant No. 16DII111 (“Deutsches Internet-Institut”).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. For instance, Directive (EU) 2011/83 of 22 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council OJ L 304/64 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. For instance, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts OJ L 95/29 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  3. For instance, the buyer of a product may have the right to receive a proportionate reduction in the price where the acquired product is not in conformity with the contract. See Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC OJ L 136/28 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2012] OJ C 326/47, arts 101, 102; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) OJ L 24/1 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) OJ L 119/1 (“GDPR”) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cf Directive (EU) 2019/771 (n 3)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Regarding the term “Big Data”, see, for instance, Laney, D.: 3-D Data Management: Controlling data volume, velocity, and variety. Application Delivery Strategies, META Group Inc. (2001). http://blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controlling-Data-Volume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020; Monopolkommission: Competition policy: The challenge of digital markets. Special Report No 68, (2015), paras 67ff, http://www.monopolkommission.de/images/PDF/SG/s68_fulltext_eng.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020; Stucke, M., Grunes A.: Big Data and Competition Policy. OUP, Oxford, paras 2.04ff (2016)

  8. For an in-depth overview of the diverse risks and opportunities of Big Data, see, for instance, Tene, O., Polonetsky, J.: Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics. Nw. J. Tech. Intell. Prop. 11(5) pp. 239, 243ff, 251ff (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bollier, D.: The Promise and Perils of Big Data. The Aspen Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 20ff (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. For some examples in practice, see Bartel, J., et al.: Big Data im Praxiseinsatz – Szenarien, Beispiele, Effekte. BITKOM e. V., Berlin, pp. 51ff (2012), https://www.bitkom.org/sites/default/files/file/import/BITKOM-LF-big-data-2012-online1.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020

  11. Minssen, T., Schovsbo J.: Big Data in the Health and Life Sciences: What Are the Challenges for European Competition Law and Where Can They Be Found? In: Seuba, X., Geiger, C., Penin, J. (eds.), Intellectual Property and Digital Trade in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data. Global Perspectives for the Intellectual Property System, CEIPI and ICTSD, Geneva and Strasbourg, pp. 121, 123 (2018); Federal Trade Commission: Big Data – A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? p. 5 (2016). https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/big-data-tool-inclusion-or-exclusion-understanding-issues/160106big-data-rpt.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020; Bartel, J., et al. (n 10) pp. 70, 76

  12. European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A European strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems, a milestone towards cooperative, connected and automated mobility. COM(2016) 766 final; OECD: Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data for Growth and Well-Being. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp. 379ff (2015). https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229358-en; Bartel, J., et al. (n 10) p. 69

  13. OECD (n 12) p. 383; Zhang,Y., Huang, T., Bompard, E.F.: Big data analytics in smart grids: a review. Energy Inform. 1(8) pp. 2, 9f, 12, 15f. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-018-0007-5

  14. See, for instance, Federal Trade Commission (n 11) pp. 8ff; Bollier, D. (n 9) pp. 23, 31

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cf European Data Protection Supervisor: Privacy and Competitiveness in the Age of Big Data: The Interplay between Data Protection, Competition Law and Consumer Protection in the Digital Economy. Preliminary Opinion (2014). https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/14-03-26_competitition_law_big_data_en.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020; cf Crémer, J., de Montjoye, Y.-A., Schweitzer, H.: Competition Policy for the Digital Age: Final Report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp. 76ff (2019). https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020

  16. For an overview see, for instance, Bonneau, V., et al.: Digital Transformation Monitor, Big Data: a complex and evolving regulatory framework. IDATE et al. (eds.), European Union, p. 3 (2017). https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/monitor/sites/default/files/DTM_Big%20Data%20v1_0.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020. For privacy breaches in the context of statistical data, see Nissim, K., et al.: Bridging the gap between computer science and legal approaches to privacy. Harvard J. Law Technol. 31(2), pp. 687, 700ff (2018)

  17. Cadwalladr, C., Graham-Harrison, E.: Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian (17 March 2018). https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election. Accessed 24 June 2020

  18. See (n 5). For an introduction to US privacy laws, see, for instance, Nissim, K., et al. (n 16) pp. 706ff

    Google Scholar 

  19. For sensitive data, see specific rules in GDPR, art 9(2)

    Google Scholar 

  20. GDPR, art 35(3); Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and determining whether processing is “likely to result in a high risk” for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679. WP 248 rev.01 (2017) pp. 8ff. http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=47711. Accessed 24 June 2020; cf Efroni, Z., et al.: Privacy icons: a risk-based approach to visualisation of data processing. EDPL 5(3) pp. 352, 361ff (2019)

  21. See, for instance, Efroni, Z., et al. (n 20) pp. 355f with further references

    Google Scholar 

  22. Efroni, Z., et al. (n 20) pp. 357ff. Cf Hansen, M.: Putting Privacy Pictograms into Practice - a European Perspective. In: Fischer, S., Maehle, E., Reischuk, R. (eds.), Informatik 2009: Im Focus das Leben, Beiträge der 39. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), 28.9.-2.10.2009, Lübeck. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. European Data Protection Supervisor, EDPS Opinion on Personal Information Management Systems: Towards More User Empowerment in Managing and Processing Personal Data. Opinion 9/2016, paras 5ff (2016). https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-10-20_pims_opinion_en.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020; Horn, N., Riechert, A., Müller, C.: Neue Wege bei der Einwilligung im Datenschutz – technische, rechtliche und ökonomische Herausforderungen. Stiftung Datenschutz, pp. 10ff (2017). https://stiftungdatenschutz.org/fileadmin/Redaktion/Bilder/Abschluss_Studie_30032017/stiftungdatenschutz_broschuere_20170611_01.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020; Betkier, M.: Privacy Online, Law and the Effective Regulation of Online Services. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp. 79ff (2019)

  24. See, for instance, Radlanski, P.: Das Konzept der Einwilligung in der datenschutzrechtlichen Realität. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp. 97, 204ff, 232f (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Monopolkommission (n 7) paras 39f

    Google Scholar 

  26. Weber, R.H.: Information at the crossroads of competition and data protection law. Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht 12(2), pp. 169, 175 (2014). For the contract law perspective on this topic, see ch 2.3

    Google Scholar 

  27. Metzger, A.: Data as Counter-Performance: What Rights and Duties do Parties Have? JIPITEC 8(1) p. 2, para 12 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Article 29 Working Party: Guidelines on Consent under Regulation 2016/679. WP259 rev.01, pp. 5ff, (2017). https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=51030. Accessed 24 June 2020

  29. Friedman, D.A.: Free Offers: A New Look. New Mexico L Rev 38(1) pp. 49ff (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cf Krohm, N., Müller-Peltzer, P.: Auswirkungen des Kopplungsverbots auf die Praxistauglichkeit der Einwilligung: Das Aus für das Modell „Service gegen Daten“? ZD 7(12) pp. 551, 553 (2017); Härting, N.: „Dateneigentum“ – Schutz durch Immaterialgüterrecht? Was sich aus dem Verständnis von Software für den zivilrechtlichen Umgang mit Daten gewinnen lässt. CR 36(10) pp. 646, 648 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Barocos, S., Nissenbaum, H.: Big Data’s End Run around Anonymity and Consent. In: Julia Lane et al. (eds.), Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement. CUP, Cambridge pp. 44, 61ff (2004) call this phenomenon “the tyranny of the minority”; Hermstrüwer, Y.: Contracting Around Privacy: The (Behavioral) Law and Economics of Consent and Big Data. JIPITEC 8(1) pp. 9, 12ff, paras 11ff (2017). In the context of statistical data, see Nissim, K., et al. (n 16) pp. 700ff

    Google Scholar 

  32. Federal Cartel Office: Big Data und Wettbewerb. In: Federal Cartel Office (ed.), Schriftenreihe Wettbewerb und Verbraucherschutz in der digitalen Wirtschaft, Bonn, p. 9, (2017). http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/DE/Schriftenreihe_Digitales/Schriftenreihe_Digitales_1.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&hx0026;v=3. Accessed 24 June 2020

  33. For instance, Evans, D.S.: The Antitrust Economics of Multi-Sided Platform Markets. Yale Journal on Regulation 20(2) pp. 324ff (2003); Evans, D.S., Noel, M.: Defining Antitrust Markets When Firms Operate Two-Sided Platforms. Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 2005(3) pp. 101ff (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cf text to n 25 in ch 2.1 of this paper

    Google Scholar 

  35. For Germany see, for instance, Federal Cartel Office: Clearance of Merger of Online Real Estate Platforms. Case summary B6-39/15, p. 3 (2015); Federal Cartel Office: Acquisition of the online comparison platform Verivox by ProSiebenSat.1. approved. Case summary B8-76/15, p. 3 (2015); Podszun, R., Franz, B.: Was ist ein Markt? – Unentgeltliche Leistungsbeziehungen im Kartellrecht. NZKart 3(3) pp. 121ff (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Act against Restraints of Competition in the version published on 26 June 2013 (Federal Law Gazette 2013 I, 1750, 3245), as last amended by art 10 of the law of 12 July 2018 (Federal Law Gazette 2018 I, 1151) (“ARC”), § 18(2a). A translation is provided by the Language Service of the Bundeskartellamt and Renate Tietjen. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gwb/englisch_gwb.html. Accessed 24 June 2020

  37. Forbes: GLOBAL 2000: The World’s Largest Public Companies. (2020). www.forbes.com/global2000/list/. Accessed 24 June 2020

  38. Federal Cartel Office (n 32) pp. 7f

    Google Scholar 

  39. OECD: Rethinking Antitrust Tools for Multi-Sided Platforms pp. 189f (2018). www.oecd.org/competition/rethinking-antitrust-tools-for-multi-sided-platforms.htm. Accessed 24 June 2020

  40. These feedback loops can be referred to as “snowball effects”; Federal Cartel Office (n 32) pp. 7f

    Google Scholar 

  41. See, for instance, Barwise, T., Watkins, L.: The Evolution of Digital Dominance: how and why we got to GAFA. In: Moore, M., Tambini, D. (eds.), Digital dominance: The power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. OUP, New York (2018), pp. 21, 22ff; Federal Cartel Office: Working Paper – The Market Power of Platforms and Networks, Executive Summary, B6-113/15. p. 9 (2016). www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Berichte/Think-Tank-Bericht-Zusammenfassung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&Cv=4. Accessed 24 June 2020

  42. European Commission: AT.39740 Google Search (Shopping); European Commission: Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service – Factsheet. (2017). https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_17_1785. Accessed 24 June 2020

  43. European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A European strategy for data. COM(2020) 66 final, pp. 12ff

    Google Scholar 

  44. ARC, § 18(3a). A new draft proposal for further amendments to the ACR puts even more emphasis on data access; see Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy: Referentenentwurf des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie, Entwurf eines Zehnten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen für ein fokussiertes, proaktives und digitales Wettbewerbsrecht 4.0, GWB-Digitalisierungsgesetz. (2020). https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/G/gwb-digitalisierungsgesetz-referentenentwurf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&hx0026;v=10. Accessed 24 June 2020. For more details, see Mischau, L.: Market Power Assessment in Digital Markets – a German Perspective. GRUR Int. 69(3), pp. 233, 245ff (2020)

  45. Regarding data and the “essential facilities doctrine”, see, for instance, Graef, I.: EU competition law, data protection and online platforms: Data as Essential Facility. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 249ff (2016); Drexl, J.: Designing Competitive Markets for Industrial Data – Between Propertisation and Access. JIPITEC 8(4) pp. 257, 278ff (2017); Schweitzer, H. et al.: Modernisierung der Missbrauchsaufsicht für marktmächtige Unternehmen: Endbericht. DICE Consult, pp. 131ff (2018). https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Wirtschaft/modernisierung-der-missbrauchsaufsicht-fuer-marktmaechtige-unternehmen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&hx0026;v=15. Accessed 24 June 2020

  46. Cf Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC OJ L 151/1, art 61(1) (2018); Kerber, W., Gill, D.: Access to Data in Connected Cars and the Recent Reform of the Motor Vehicle Type Approval Regulation. JIPITEC 10(2), pp. 244ff (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cf Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC OJ L 337/35, art 66(1) (2015), (4)(b), art 67(1), (3)(b)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Crémer, J., de Montjoye, Y.-A., Schweitzer, H. (n 15) pp. 77ff; Bourreau, M., de Streel, A., Graef, I.: Big Data and Competition Policy: Market Power, Personalised Pricing and Advertising: Project Report. CERRE, pp. 15ff (2017). https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/170216_CERRE_CompData_FinalReport.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020

  49. Crémer, J., de Montjoye, Y.-A., Schweitzer, H. (n 15) pp. 77ff; Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy: A new competition framework for the digital economy: Report by the Commission Competition Law 4.0. BMWi, Berlin, pp. 56ff (2019). https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Publikationen/Wirtschaft/a-new-competition-framework-for-the-digital-economy.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3. Accessed 24 June 2020

  50. Federal Cartel Office: B6–22/16 Facebook, paras 136ff; Federal Cartel Office: Bundeskartellamt prohibits Facebook from combining user data from different sources: Background information on the Bundeskartellamt’s Facebook proceeding, p. 5 (2019). www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2019/07_02_2019_Facebook_FAQs.pdf?__blob¼publicationFile&v¼6. Accessed 24 June 2020

  51. Düsseldorf CA, 26 August 2019, Kart 1/19 (V) Facebook

    Google Scholar 

  52. Directive 2019/770/EU of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services OJ L 136/1 (2019) (“DCSD”)

    Google Scholar 

  53. European Data Protection Supervisor: Opinion 4/2017 on the Proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content. paras 14ff (2017). https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/17–03-14_opinion_digital_content_en.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2020

  54. DCSD, art 3(1), recital 24. Metzger, A. et al.: Data-Related Aspects of the Digital Content Directive. JIPITEC 9(1), pp. 90, 93ff, paras 12ff (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Langhanke, C., Schmidt-Kessel, M.: Consumer Data as Consideration. EuCML 4(6), pp. 218, 219f (2015). Regarding the complex interplay between the DCSD and the GDPR, see Metzger, A.: A Market Model for Personal Data: State of the Play under the New Directive on Digital Content and Digital Services. In Lohsse, S., Schulze, R., Staudenmayer, D. (eds.), Data as Counter-Performance – Contract Law 2.0? Münster Colloquia on EU Law and the Digital Economy V, Nomos, Baden-Baden (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  56. DCSD, art 7(a), (d), art 8(1)(b), (2), art 19, recitals 42, 47

    Google Scholar 

  57. Directive (EU) 2019/771 (n 3), arts 6(a), (d), 7(1)(d), (3), recitals 28, 30f. In contrast to the DCSD, these rules for IoT products only apply in cases where the consumer has paid a monetary price in exchange for the product

    Google Scholar 

  58. European Commission: Commission Staff Working Document: Guidance on sharing private sector data in the European data economy. SWD(2018) 125 final, pp. 5, 8ff

    Google Scholar 

  59. European Commission (n 58) pp. 3, 6ff

    Google Scholar 

  60. European Commission (n 43) pp. 13, 15

    Google Scholar 

  61. One example is the European eCall regulation, which allows the processing of certain personal data in cases of car accidents in order to accelerate the rescue work of the police and the fire brigarde; see Regulation (EU) 2015/758 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 concerning type-approval requirements for the deployment of the eCall in-vehicle system based on the 112 service and amending Directive 2007/46/EC OJ L 123/77 (2015); Klink-Straub, J., Straub, T.: Nächste Ausfahrt DS-GVO – Datenschutzrechtliche Herausforderungen beim automatisierten Fahren. NJW 71(44), pp. 3201, 3203 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Cf, for instance, the German Criminal Code in the version published on 13 November 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3322), as last amended by Article 2 of the Act of 19 June 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 844), §§ 202a-202d. A translation is provided by Prof. Dr Michael Bohlander that is completely revised and regularly updated by Ute Reusch. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html. Accessed 24 June 2020

  63. These topics are very complex. As a starting point, see Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC OJ L 130/92 (2019); see also Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases OJ L 77/20 (1996); see also Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure OJ L 157/1 (2016). Cf, for instance, Wiebe, A.: Protection of industrial data – a new property right for the digital economy? GRUR Int. 65(10), pp. 877, 879ff (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  64. European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: “Building a European Data Economy”. COM(2017) 9 final, p. 13. Cf, for instance, Zech, H.: Information as Property. JIPITEC 6(3), pp. 192, 196f, paras 31ff (2015); Wiebe, A. (n 63) pp. 881ff. However, the focus of the debate has in the meantime shifted towards the question of data access, and the introduction of new data property rights has become rather unlikely; see Mischau, L. (n44) pp. 237f with further references

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society, Hardenbergstraße 32, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Lena Mischau

  2. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099, Berlin, Germany

    Lena Mischau

Authors
  1. Lena Mischau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Mischau .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Salford, Salford, UK

    David Kreps

  2. Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

    Taro Komukai

  3. Anna University, Chennai, India

    T. V. Gopal

  4. Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

    Kaori Ishii

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mischau, L. (2020). The Laws of Big Data. In: Kreps, D., Komukai, T., Gopal, T.V., Ishii, K. (eds) Human-Centric Computing in a Data-Driven Society. HCC 2020. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 590. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62803-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62803-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62802-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62803-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation