What is the primary focus of the ICLSPI conference?

The conference focuses on legal, security, and privacy issues, exploring their interconnectedness in the contemporary world.

Who is the target audience for this conference?

The conference is designed for scholars, researchers, and practitioners interested in the fields of law, security, and privacy.

International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues (ICLSPI) – June 22 2026

Name: International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues (ICLSPI) – June 22 2026
Start: 2026-06-22T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-06-22T00:00:00Z
Location: Venice

Jun 22, 2026Venice, ItalyIn-person

Registration open

The International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues (ICLSPI) convenes in Venice, ITA, bringing together scholars, researchers, and practitioners to explore the evolving landscape of law, security, and privacy. This event serves as a critical forum for discussing contemporary challenges and advancements in these interconnected fields, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. The conference focuses on a broad spectrum of topics, ranging from digital rights and data protection to cybersecurity threats and the legal frameworks designed to address them. Participants will engage with cutting-edge research and practical applications, contributing to a deeper understanding of how legal principles, security measures, and privacy considerations intersect in an increasingly digital world.

Committees & topics

Topics
Electronic Signatures and Cross-Border Legal Recognition · Digital Forensics and the Admissibility of Electronic Evidence · Workplace Email Monitoring and Employee Privacy · Data Retention and Protection Regimes · Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Economy · Contract and Tort in the Online Environment · Legal Status of Virtual Companies and Decentralized Entities · International E-commerce Law and the WTO Joint Initiative

Why it matters

In an era defined by rapid technological advancement and increasing global interconnectedness, the issues of legal compliance, robust security, and individual privacy have become paramount. The ICLSPI addresses these critical areas, recognizing that effective governance and protection in the digital sphere require a holistic approach.

The discussions at this conference are vital for shaping future policies and practices. As societies grapple with complex questions surrounding data ownership, surveillance, and cyber warfare, forums like the ICLSPI provide a platform for experts to share insights and develop innovative solutions. The outcomes of such gatherings can influence legislative processes, inform industry standards, and ultimately contribute to a more secure and equitable digital environment for all.

The location of the conference in Venice, ITA, a country with a rich legal history, provides a unique backdrop for these discussions. The insights shared here are crucial for anyone involved in navigating the intricate balance between technological progress, legal imperatives, and the fundamental right to privacy.

How to prepare

To effectively engage with the discussions at ICLSPI, participants should undertake a comprehensive review of current trends in international data protection laws and cybersecurity regulations. A strong understanding of the interplay between national and international legal frameworks will be beneficial. Consider exploring the concept of 'Dynamic Analysis' to anticipate shifts in legal and security paradigms.

Delegates should also prepare to analyze the various stakeholder interests involved in legal, security, and privacy issues. Utilizing frameworks such as 'What Is Stakeholder Mapping?' and identifying 'Hidden Stakeholders' can provide a nuanced perspective on the challenges and potential solutions presented. Understanding the diverse perspectives of governments, corporations, and civil society organizations will be key to contributing meaningfully.

Furthermore, developing an understanding of different 'Engagement Strategies' will be valuable for networking and collaborating with other attendees. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the conference, being prepared to discuss how legal principles are applied across different technological contexts, and how security measures impact privacy, will enhance the overall experience and contribution.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 3 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Italy

As the host nation, ITA plays a significant role in facilitating discussions on legal, security, and privacy issues within a European context.

Role in topic

ITA provides the venue for this international conference, contributing to the discourse on legal frameworks, data protection, and cybersecurity from a European perspective.

United States

The USA often emphasizes innovation and economic growth, which can lead to different approaches to privacy and data governance compared to other nations.

Role in topic

The USA's technological leadership and its unique legal landscape, including various state-level privacy laws, offer a distinct viewpoint on balancing security, innovation, and individual rights within the conference's themes.

China

CHN's approach to data security and privacy is characterized by strong state control and a focus on national security, often contrasting with Western liberal democratic norms.

Role in topic

CHN's extensive digital infrastructure and its regulatory environment provide a significant case study for discussions on state-led data governance, cybersecurity, and the implications for individual privacy and international legal cooperation.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

Electronic Signatures and Cross-Border Legal Recognition

Electronic signatures emerged as a legal instrument in the late 1990s as states sought to provide functional equivalence between handwritten and digital signatures for online commerce. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures (2001) established the foundational principle of technology neutrality, while regional frameworks diverged: the European Union's eIDAS Regulation (910/2014, updated by eIDAS 2.0 in 2024) created a tiered system distinguishing simple, advanced, and qualified electronic signatures, whereas the United States ESIGN Act (2000) and UETA adopted a more permissive single-tier model. China's Electronic Signature Law (2004, amended 2019) and India's IT Act similarly anchor domestic frameworks but differ on certification authority recognition. The core dispute today concerns cross-border interoperability and trust. Qualified trust service providers recognized in one jurisdiction are often not automatically recognized in another, creating friction for international contracts, remote notarization, and the emerging European Digital Identity Wallet. Disagreements persist over whether biometric and cryptographic standards should be harmonized through ISO/ITU instruments or through bilateral mutual recognition agreements. As governments expand digital public infrastructure and AI-generated content raises new authentication risks, delegates must weigh how to reconcile divergent assurance levels, liability rules for certification authorities, and the role of distributed ledger or biometric signatures in future treaty instruments.

Key players

Digital Forensics and the Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

The discipline of digital forensics developed in the 1990s alongside the rise of computer crime, with early standards set by the US Department of Justice and the G8's 1997 Principles on Transborder Access to Stored Computer Data. The Council of Europe's Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (2001) became the principal multilateral instrument governing the preservation, seizure, and cross-border production of electronic evidence, supplemented by its Second Additional Protocol (2022) on enhanced cooperation and disclosure of subscriber information. In parallel, ISO/IEC 27037 and 27041 codified handling procedures, and national courts developed evidentiary doctrines around chain of custody, hash verification, and expert testimony. The central dispute is jurisdictional. Cloud computing has decoupled the location of data from the location of users and service providers, prompting unilateral measures such as the US CLOUD Act (2018) and the EU's e-Evidence Regulation (2023), which authorize direct production orders to foreign-based providers. Russia, China, and several G77 states argue these instruments violate sovereignty and have pushed instead for the UN Cybercrime Convention adopted by the General Assembly in December 2024. Delegates must address how to harmonize forensic standards, ensure due process protections against mass data preservation requests, and manage AI-generated deepfake evidence, whose authentication challenges existing chain-of-custody methodologies.

Key players

Workplace Email Monitoring and Employee Privacy

Workplace electronic monitoring became a contested issue from the late 1990s as employers deployed email surveillance to manage productivity, security, and liability. The European Court of Human Rights set a landmark precedent in Bărbulescu v. Romania (2017), holding that Article 8 of the European Convention requires employers to give prior notice of monitoring and to apply proportionality tests. The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (2018) further constrained processing of employee communications, requiring a lawful basis and data minimization, and many EU states have layered additional works-council consultation requirements. By contrast, US law, anchored in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986) and a patchwork of state statutes (notably New York's 2022 monitoring-notice law), generally permits monitoring with consent or business justification. The post-pandemic shift to remote and hybrid work intensified the dispute, as employers deployed keystroke loggers, screen capture, and AI-driven productivity analytics on personal-use-permitted devices. Regulators in Germany, France, and Italy have fined firms for disproportionate monitoring, while ILO guidance increasingly frames worker surveillance as a labor-rights concern. Delegates must navigate the tension between employer interests in cybersecurity and trade-secret protection and workers' rights to private correspondence, including the question of whether international labor standards should explicitly regulate algorithmic management and bossware.

Key players

Data Retention and Protection Regimes

Data retention emerged as a major policy field after the 2001 terrorist attacks, when states sought to mandate telecommunications providers to retain traffic and subscriber data for law-enforcement access. The EU's Data Retention Directive (2006) was struck down by the Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland (2014) and Tele2/Watson (2016) as incompatible with Charter rights, forcing member states toward targeted retention models. In parallel, the GDPR (2018) established a global benchmark for data protection, inspiring instruments such as Brazil's LGPD, India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023), and California's CCPA/CPRA. China's PIPL (2021) and Data Security Law impose strict localization and cross-border transfer review. The central dispute pits security and law-enforcement demands for bulk retention against fundamental-rights jurisprudence requiring necessity and proportionality. Cross-border transfer mechanisms remain contested: the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (2023) replaced the invalidated Privacy Shield but faces fresh CJEU challenges, while data-localization mandates in Russia, China, India, and Vietnam fragment the global internet. Delegates must consider whether a multilateral instrument under Convention 108+ or a UN framework could reconcile divergent regimes, how to govern retention of biometric and AI training data, and how to ensure independent oversight of intelligence access.

Key players

Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Economy

The modern IP regime rests on the WIPO-administered Berne and Paris Conventions and the WTO's TRIPS Agreement (1994), supplemented by the WIPO Internet Treaties (1996) addressing digital copyright and rights-management information. Subsequent instruments — the Marrakesh Treaty (2013), Beijing Treaty (2012), and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (2024) — expanded the framework, while the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee continues to negotiate protection for traditional knowledge and genetic resources, culminating in the 2024 Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. The contemporary dispute centers on generative AI and platform liability. Courts in the US, UK, and EU are adjudicating whether training large language models on copyrighted works constitutes infringement or fair use/text-and-data-mining exception, and whether AI-generated outputs are themselves copyrightable. The EU AI Act (2024) imposes training-data transparency obligations, while the US Copyright Office has issued guidance denying registration for purely machine-generated works. Developing states meanwhile press for TRIPS flexibilities on access to medicines, building on the 2022 MC12 TRIPS waiver for COVID-19 vaccines. Delegates must reconcile innovation incentives with access, indigenous rights, and the unresolved status of AI authorship and inventorship.

Key players

Contract and Tort in the Online Environment

The application of contract and tort principles to digital transactions has evolved through soft-law instruments and national case law rather than a single treaty. The UNCITRAL Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (2005, in force 2013) provides functional equivalence and party-autonomy rules, while the UNIDROIT Principles and the CISG remain the substantive backbone for cross-border sales. National courts have grappled with the enforceability of clickwrap and browsewrap agreements (ProCD v. Zeidenberg in the US; Content Services v. Bundesarbeitskammer in the EU), and with unfair-terms control under the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive and consumer-rights instruments. In tort, the central debates concern intermediary liability and algorithmic harms. The EU's Digital Services Act (2024) replaced the e-Commerce Directive's safe harbors with tiered due-diligence duties, while US Section 230 immunity faces sustained challenges in the courts and Congress. The proposed EU AI Liability Directive and revised Product Liability Directive (2024) extend strict liability to software and AI outputs, raising questions about causation, foreseeability, and burden of proof for algorithmic harms. Delegates must address jurisdiction and applicable-law conflicts, the enforceability of automated and smart-contract obligations, and how tort doctrines adapt to autonomous systems whose decisions resist traditional fault analysis.

Key players

Legal Status of Virtual Companies and Decentralized Entities

The concept of the virtual or wholly-digital company has evolved from early offshore e-residency schemes — notably Estonia's e-Residency programme launched in 2014 — into complex questions about decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and AI-managed firms. Traditional company law presupposes a physical seat, identifiable directors, and a jurisdiction of incorporation, principles reflected in the OECD's BEPS framework on corporate tax residency. Wyoming's DAO LLC Act (2021), the Marshall Islands' DAO Act (2022), and Switzerland's DLT Act (2021) represent first attempts to grant legal personality to blockchain-based organizations, while the Vermont Blockchain-Based LLC and Malta's VFA framework offer alternative models. The central dispute concerns regulatory arbitrage and accountability. Virtual companies challenge anti-money-laundering enforcement (FATF Recommendation 15 and the Travel Rule), corporate taxation under the OECD/G20 Two-Pillar Solution, and investor-protection regimes. The collapse of FTX and several DAO exploits intensified calls for clear governance and liability rules, while the EU's MiCA Regulation (in force 2024) imposes structured obligations on crypto-asset service providers without fully resolving DAO status. Delegates must consider how to extend corporate personhood, fiduciary duties, and tax nexus rules to entities that may have no human directors, no fixed seat, and members dispersed across jurisdictions.

Key players

International E-commerce Law and the WTO Joint Initiative

E-commerce regulation rests on layered instruments: the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996), the Convention on Electronic Communications (2005), and the WTO's 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce with its renewed moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. Regional agreements — including USMCA's digital trade chapter, CPTPP, the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA), and the African Continental Free Trade Area's e-commerce protocol adopted in 2024 — have advanced binding rules on data flows, source code protection, and paperless trade. The central forum is the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce, in which over 90 members concluded a stabilized text in July 2024 covering electronic contracts, e-signatures, consumer protection, and spam, though contentious issues including data flows, localization, and source code remain bracketed. India, South Africa, and Indonesia have resisted plurilateral approaches, citing development concerns and the need to preserve policy space, while pressing to end the moratorium on digital customs duties. Delegates must address how to reconcile cross-border data flows with privacy and security imperatives, how to protect consumers in cross-border transactions, and whether the moratorium on electronic-transmission duties should be extended, conditioned, or terminated.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues (ICLSPI) – June 22 2026.

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Impact on 2026

Trump's Federal Election Strategy

Supreme Court VRA Ruling Empowers GOP 2026

Howard Lutnick's Senate Testimony on 2027 Bud

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Engagement Strategies

Dynamic Analysis

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

Advanced Negotiation

Multilateral Negotiation

Policy Brief Writing

Conflict Resolution

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

By committee

Frequently asked questions

International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues (ICLSPI) – June 22 2026

Jun 22, 2026Venice, ItalyIn-person

Registration open

Committees & topics

Topics
Electronic Signatures and Cross-Border Legal Recognition · Digital Forensics and the Admissibility of Electronic Evidence · Workplace Email Monitoring and Employee Privacy · Data Retention and Protection Regimes · Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Economy · Contract and Tort in the Online Environment · Legal Status of Virtual Companies and Decentralized Entities · International E-commerce Law and the WTO Joint Initiative

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 3 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Italy

As the host nation, ITA plays a significant role in facilitating discussions on legal, security, and privacy issues within a European context.

Role in topic

ITA provides the venue for this international conference, contributing to the discourse on legal frameworks, data protection, and cybersecurity from a European perspective.

United States

The USA often emphasizes innovation and economic growth, which can lead to different approaches to privacy and data governance compared to other nations.

Role in topic

China

CHN's approach to data security and privacy is characterized by strong state control and a focus on national security, often contrasting with Western liberal democratic norms.

Role in topic