메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
이부하 (영남대학교)
저널정보
충북대학교 법학연구소 과학기술과 법 과학기술과 법 제9권 제2호
발행연도
2018.1
수록면
211 - 230 (20page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Because this large amount of data is not accessible to manual evaluation, automated processes are required, using information technology and computing. Strictly speaking, they are algorithms that use precise rules of calculation to extract specific results from huge amounts of data. An algorithm is generally definable as a calculation rule, that the individual processing-steps clearly emerge from it and so a mechanically or electronically operating device can execute the rule. By going through these calculation rules, certain inputs are converted into an output, making the transformed version of the raw data. An important feature of algorithms is that, unlike the input data, the output data is not fully determined. The autocomplete feature introduced by Google works in such a way that when a term is entered into the search field it automatically displays so-called ‘predictions’ that are similar to or complete the current search term. A clear judgment has proved difficult. Above all, the following questions were answered inconsistently. (1) Do automatically submitted search suggestions have their own potentially personality-infringing content? Do you affirm this. (2) Are the search suggestions Google's own content? And finally: (3) Is Google liable as offender or disturber? Some literature opinion denies its own content, as well as the making of foreign content by Google, as the proposals would be presented purely automatically and without interim review by Google. It ignores the fact that the display of the terms by Google and the criteria that determine whether a term is proposed, selected by Google and filters are used to hide certain content. For example, by programming the algorithm, Google provides certain input through the input. However, what in the end ‘output’ can not be conclusively foreseen. Thus, this corresponds to a statement of fact automatically based on certain factors, as an expression of opinion must be formed with some awareness, at least according to common understanding. It remains unclear who in this case is a offender and why it lacks intent. Because it seems outlandish that was not recognized by the search engine operator, that personality rights infringing word combinations are theoretically possible, so the blanket denial of any intent appears questionable.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (19)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0