Andrew Murray is Professor of Law with particular reference to New Media and Technology Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (FRSA).
Andrew studied law at Edinburgh University, from where he graduated (LL.B. Hons) in 1994. He undertook the one year Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice during 1994-95 and then spent one year as a research assistant in the Department of Private Law, University of Edinburgh before taking up a lectureship in law at the University of Stirling in 1996. He joined the LSE Law Department in September 2000.
As well as holding memberships of: The Society of Computers and Law (SCL); The Higher Education Academy (HEA) and The David Hume Institute, Andrew was from 2001-2004 an Executive Member of the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA); and was from 2002-2008 a recognised 'Independent Expert' of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Procedure and from 2007-2012 a Fellow of the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn.
He is a visiting professor at the Computer/Law Institute, Vrije Universeit Amsterdam, and was a visiting professor in the Ecole de Droit, Sciences Po, Paris in Lent Term 2015.
Information Technology Law : The Law and Society 3rd ed. (Oxford, 2016)
The third edition of Information Technology Law develops the discussions of the unique challenges the information society brings to the study of law, with reference to contemporary developments such as state surveillance programmes, and laws, post Snowden; the 2016 General Data Protection Regulation, the "Right to be Forgotten", and the Max Schrems decision; developments in net neutrality regulation; and the development of crypocurrencies (such as BitCoin).
The Regulation of Cyberspace: Control in the Online Environment (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2006)
In The Regulation of Cyberspace, Andrew Murray examines the development and design of regulatory structures in the online environment. The book models how all forms of control, including design controls, and market controls, as well as traditional command and control regulation, are applied within the complex and flexible environment of Cyberspace. Drawing on the work of Cyber-regulatory theorists such as Yochai Benkler, Andrew Shapiro and Lawrence Lessig, Murray suggests a model for Cyberspace regulation which acknowledges its complexity. He further suggests how this model can be utilised by regulators to provide a more comprehensive regulatory structure for Cyberspace.
'A Principled Approach to Net Neutrality', SCRIPT-ed, Vol.13.2, 118-143, 2016 (with Lucie Audibert)
The issue of regulation for mandated network neutrality is currently live in both the United States and the European Union. Traditionally, the models applied have been of the command and control or market regulation variety. Both approaches have been extensively criticised and both have suffered setbacks in recent years. This paper suggests it is time to abandon our experiments with traditional business regulation models and move to a principled approach for network neutrality. This principled approach, based upon the rights to privacy, expression and freedom to carry on a business, identifies the Internet as a public good which requires to be protected from interference if we are to fully realise its democratic potential. The proposed principled, or rights-based, approach to net neutrality would see regulations for network neutrality based in principles of fundamental rights and not business or market regulation principles. We believe this would be a radical new model for network neutrality regulation.
'The value of analogue educational tools in a digital educational environment' European Journal of Law and Technology (2015) 6 (1) pp.1-16
There is a powerful rhetoric in all aspects of tertiary education today in favour of the adoption of, and increased role for, digital platforms and virtual learning environments in the design of course curricula. We are told that these tools will have a transformative effect and will lead to a blended learning experience. This paper argues that these platforms may not be the panacea suggested, and may in fact lead to a conflict of pedagogical values between local vocational, or Shulman, values and the wider pedagogical values behind the design of the platform or VLE. Using as a case study an alternative, analogue, supplementary educational platform used in the Cyberlaw class at the London School of Economics in 2013/14, the author argues that pedagogy, and indeed andragogy, must drive curriculum design not the availability of technology platforms or their adoption at institutional level.