![]() ![]() Preprints (2019).Īlazab, M., Venkatraman, S., Watters, P., Alazab, M.: Zero-day malware detection based on supervised learning algorithms of API call signatures. IEEE Access 8, 79764–79800 (2020)Īlkhalifah, A., Ng, A., Kayes, A., Chowdhury, J., Alazab, M., Watters, P.: A taxonomy of blockchain threats and vulnerabilities. Sustainability 11(11), 3049 (2019)īodkhe, U., Tanwar, S., Parekh, K., Khanpara, P., Tyagi, S., Kumar, N., Alazab, M.: Blockchain for industry 40: a comprehensive review. Salmerón-Manzano, E., Manzano-Agugliaro, F.: The role of smart contracts in sustainability: worldwide research trends. Kim, J.-S., Shin, N.: The impact of blockchain technology application on supply chain partnership and performance. Khalid, U., Asim, M., Baker, T., Hung, P.C., Tariq, M.A., Rafferty, L.: A decentralized lightweight blockchain-based authentication mechanism for IoT systems. Niranjanamurthy, M., Nithya, B., Jagannatha, S.: Analysis of blockchain technology: pros, cons and SWOT. Tseng, L., Yao, X., Otoum, S., Aloqaily, M., Jararweh, Y.: Blockchain-based database in an IoT environment: challenges, opportunities, and analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2020)Ĭole, R., Stevenson, M., Aitken, J.: Blockchain technology: implications for operations and supply chain management. Maleh, Y., Shojafar, M., Alazab, M., Romdhani, I.: Blockchain for Cybersecurity and Privacy: Architectures, Challenges, and Applications. In: IT Security Governance Innovations: Theory and Research. Springer, Berlin (2012)Īlazab, M., Venkatraman, S., Watters, P., Alazab, M.: Information security governance: the art of detecting hidden malware. (eds.) Global security, safety and sustainability & e-democracy, vol. In: Georgiadis, C., Jahankhani, H., Pimenidis, E., Bashroush, R., Al-Nemrat, A. ![]() 34(1), 16–23 (2020)Īlazab, M., Venkatraman, S., Watters, P., Alazab, M., Alazab, A.: Cybercrime: The Case of Obfuscated Malware. Tseng, L., Wong, L., Otoum, S., Aloqaily, M., Othman, J.B.: Blockchain for managing heterogeneous internet of things: a perspective architecture. Our results show that the UTAUT’s social influence factor has no significant effect on the intention to adopt blockchain, while inter-organisational trust has a significant effect on the relationship between the UTAUT dimension and intention to adopt blockchain.īerdik, D., Otoum, S., Schmidt, N., Porter, D., Jararweh, Y.: A survey on blockchain for information systems management and security. Using structural equation modelling, we find that the ISS, TTF, and UTAUT models positively influence the key factors affecting supply chain employees’ willingness to adopt blockchain. To capture the most vital aspects of blockchain adoption in supply chains, our conceptual model integrates the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model with the task-technology fit (TTF) and information system success (ISS) models, with trust-based information technology innovation adoption constructs. Using data from a cross-sectoral survey of 449 industries, we investigate factors that hinder or facilitate blockchain adoption in supply chains. Accordingly, the essay concludes that more empirical research should be done to guide courts in determining when evidentiary prior restraints should not be enforced.Blockchain overcomes numerous complicated problems related to confidentiality, integrity, availability of fast and secure distributed systems. Nevertheless, the essay does discuss situations when the protection of privacy interests may aid, rather than hinder, enforcement objectives. ![]() Moreover, such restraints prevent market pressure from regulating the conduct of market participants, leading to more harm. In general, the essay concludes that privacy interests alone do not justify the enforcement of litigation restraints because these privacy interests can, and often do, prevent courts from accurately assessing the liability of the parties. This essay examines the effects of evidentiary restraints on the enforcement function of civil litigation. Although evidentiary prior restraints have received great attention given recent controversies concerning sexual harassment, products liability, and other areas of the law, the issue has not received much attention from scholars. But evidentiary prior restraints can also arise from prior court action, as when parties seek information subject to a protective order or sealing order made by a different court. Such “evidentiary prior restraints” arise most prominently in settlement agreements, which may include nondisclosure provisions that prevent information concerning the settlement from being used by parties to the agreement. In civil litigation courts often deal with information that is subject to a previously imposed restraint on the ability of a court or others to use the information. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |