Contributing to recent scholarship on the governance of algorithms, this article explores the role of dignity in data protection law addressing automated decision-making. Delving into the historical roots of contemporary disputes between information societies, notably European Union and Council of Europe countries and the United States, reveals that the regulation of algorithms has a rich, culturally entrenched, politically relevant backstory. The article compares the making of law concerning data protection and privacy, focusing on the role automation has played in the two regimes. By situating diverse policy treatments within the cultural contexts from which they emerged, the article uncovers and examines two different legal constructions of automated data processing, one that has furnished a right to a human in the loop that is intended to protect the dignity of the data subject and the other that promotes and fosters full automation to establish and celebrate the fairness and objectivity of computers. The existence of a subtle right across European countries and its absence in the US will no doubt continue to be relevant to international technology policy as smart technologies are introduced in more and more areas of society.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Two terms, student privacy and Massive Open Online Courses, have received a significant amount of attention recently. Both represent interesting sites of change in entrenched structures, one educational and one legal. MOOCs represent something college courses have never been able to provide: universal access. Universities not wanting to miss the MOOC wave have started to build MOOC courses and integrate them into the university system in various ways. However, the design and scale of university MOOCs create tension for privacy laws intended to regulate information practices exercised by educational institutions. Are MOOCs part of the educational institutions these laws and policies aim to regulate? Are MOOC users students whose data are protected by aforementioned laws and policies? Many university researchers and faculty members are asked to participate as designers and instructors in MOOCs but may not know how to approach the issues proposed. While recent scholarship has addressed the disruptive nature of MOOCs, student privacy generally, and data privacy in the K-12 system, we provide an in-depth description and analysis of the MOOC phenomenon and the privacy laws and policies that guide and regulate educational institutions today. We offer privacy case studies of three major MOOC providers active in the market today to reveal inconsistencies among MOOC platform and the level and type of legal uncertainty surrounding them. Finally, we provide a list of organizational questions to pose internally to navigate the uncertainty presented to university MOOC teams.