Data Protection and the Role of Fairness

Clifford, Damian; Ausloos, Jef

doi:10.1093/yel/yey004

Cited by 43 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…84 The right of access-as well as other data subject rights-give teeth to general principles of fairness, accountability, and responsibility. 85 Collective control. The control narrative in data protection law should not be read rigidly as only including individual control, entirely dependent on a data subject's active engagement.…”

Section: Verification Of Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Shattering one-way mirrors – data subject access rights in practice

Ausloos,

Dewitte

2018

International Data Privacy Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors would like to thank the many individuals who have made this article possible, in particular Louise Flamey and Pinelopi Servata who helped gathering the empirical data, Rob Heyman (VUB-SMIT-imec) who co-developed the methodology for conducting the empirical research underlying this article and Paul-Olivier Dehaye (PersonalData.io) for providing the infrastructure to gather empirical data as well as enlightening us with many real-life examples and insights drawn from his own experience. The authors report no declarations of interest.

show abstract

Section: Verification Of Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Shattering one-way mirrors – data subject access rights in practice

Ausloos,

Dewitte

2018

International Data Privacy Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As was already mentioned, closely related to transparency is the principle of fairness. At present, the principle of fairness in itself is still somewhat vague, and it should be read in conjunction with other principles, such as lawfulness, transparency, accountability, data minimization, and purpose limitation, as laid down in Article 5 GDPR and elaborated in the subsequent provisions (Clifford and Ausloos 2018;Maglieri 2020). In essence, there must be a fair balance between the interests of the data subject and IoToys companies, whereby the best interests of the child (Article 3 CRC) must be 'a primary consideration' also in the actions of private actors (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2013a; b; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2021).…”

Section: Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toy story or children story? Putting children and their rights at the forefront of the artificial intelligence revolution

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policymakers need to start considering the impact smart connected toys (SCTs) have on children. Equipped with sensors, data processing capacities, and connectivity, SCTs targeting children increasingly penetrate pervasively personal environments. The network of SCTs forms the Internet of Toys (IoToys) and often increases children's engagement and playtime experience. Unfortunately, this young part of the population and, most of the time, their parents are often unaware of SCTs’ far-reaching capacities and limitations. The capabilities and constraints of SCTs create severe side effects at the technical, individual, and societal level. These side effects are often unforeseeable and unexpected. They arise from the technology's use and the interconnected nature of the IoToys, without necessarily involving malevolence from their creators. Although existing regulations and new ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence provide remedies to address some of the side effects, policymakers did not develop these redress mechanisms having children and SCTs in mind. This article provides an analysis of the arising side effects of SCTs and contrasts them with current regulatory redress mechanisms. We thereby highlight misfits and needs for further policymaking efforts.

show abstract

“…[64] As Cliford and Ausloos argue, this does not only mean that data subjects must not be deceived by the controller about what is happening with their personal data, but it also aims at counterbalancing the inherent imbalance in data protecton between data subject and controller in a more general manner. [65] Data protecton and ant-discriminaton law do not only share this inital aim of re-establishing fairness, they also go in similar ways about it. As Gellert et al note in their comparison of data protecton and ant-discriminaton law within the EU, both areas of law stpulate legal principles and establish administratve bodies (data protecton authorites and equality bodies), as well as individual rights for the afected (data subject rights and access to justce rights).…”

Section: Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[47] According to Cliford and Ausloos the principle overarches the GDPR and encompasses many aspects, ranging from transparency to protecton from power imbalances, and it can be summarised in the concepts of fair balancing and procedural fairness. [48] Considering the mere applicability of data protecton law to pricing algorithms, this secton concludes that data protecton law is indeed applicable to pricing algorithms, but does not prohibit them as such.…”

Section: Applicability Of Data Protecton Law To Pricing Algorithmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[66] A fnal commonality between ant-discriminaton and data protecton law achieved through the noton of fairness lies in the concept of 'fair balancing', which for Cliford and Ausloos forms one core string of fairness, and represents the need for necessity and proportonality to be examined when there is a clash with other fundamental rights. [67] This aspect of fairness was also pivotal when the CJEU discussed its so far only case mentoning [68] both data protecton and nondiscriminaton: Huber.…”

Section: Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation