Main Issues of Pedagogy and Psychology, Vol. 3, p. 117, 2011
21 Pages Posted: 27 Jan 2012
Date Written: 2011
The future of e-commerce for Armenia depends in large part upon increasing the number of personal computers as well as businesses opening opportunities on the Internet. Armenia's Minister of Economics hopes to achieve the goal of connecting seventy percent of all Armenian households to the Internet by 2018. This is an ambitious goal as less than 10% of Armenians currently have an Internet connection. If Armenia can achieve this milestone, the Internet will evolve at a rapid pace. Major technological advances create new forms of injury that require rights and remedies. This Article argues that Armenia might turn to cybertorts versus intrusive government regulation to resolve the foreseeable civil wrongs from a greater Internet presence. The tort system allows for private enforcement in contrast to the thick regulation found in the Eurozone. Part I examines personal property cybertorts to address computer spam and viruses. Part II is an examination of how Armenian businesses might turn to business torts to protect their intellectual property and other assets. Part III explores information-based torts such as defamation, negligence, and the invasion of privacy arising out of the use of email, website postings, and social networking sites. Part IV is a new audit of the most common intentional torts against the person that arise out of Internet-related activities. Part V explains the perils of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a U.S. statute that shields websites from third party torts. Internet governance requires global standards to protect consumer rights in cyberspace. The lesson from the U.S. experience is that immunity breeds irresponsibility. The role of cybertorts in Armenia should be to supplement, but not supplant, public regulation.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Rustad, Michael L., How Armenian Cybertorts Can Advance Civil Society (2011). Main Issues of Pedagogy and Psychology, Vol. 3, p. 117, 2011; Suffolk University Law School Research Paper No. 12-08. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1992113