nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Everybody Wants To Rule the World: The Relevance of the Rule of Law for Private Law in the Context of Algorithmic Profiling of Online Users

verfasst von : Silvia A. Carretta

Erschienen in: YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions 2023

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The rule of law is an elusive concept, and its fluidity lends itself to multiple interpretations. Different accounts connect various core elements—‘desiderata’—under this universally recognised concept. However, there is a consensus (albeit implicit) that the rule of law is essentially a public law concept, of only marginal concern to private law. This paper departs from this understanding and suggests that this presumption is a misperception. The rule of law does not concern only the regulation of powers and arbitrariness between individuals and the State, but it operates also in the relationships between private individuals.

In particular, with the flare-up in recent years in the use of machine learning algorithms to profile online users (in order to predict their behaviour and tailor recommendations and searches to their preferences), private actors (i.e. online platforms) have obtained a super-dominant position both in the collection of data and development of the technology, in the digital (eco)systems in which they operate.

This paper aims to prospectively assess the duplicitous relevance that algorithmic profiling has for the protection of fundamental rights from a private law perspective (e.g. right to privacy, right to not be discriminated, freedom of expression) and for the self-appointed power of online platforms to self-regulate their contractual relationships with users, in the digital markets. Conversely, it also discusses the relevance of the rule of law for private law relationships in its function of stronghold for the protection of fundamental rights. This value, on one side, creates legal guardrails around private self-regulation of online platforms, and on the other side, it secures the respect of fundamental rights of users from algorithmic profiling by online platforms. The paper concludes with the need to re-evaluate the State’s power to limit private freedom and interfere in parties’ autonomy in cases where fundamental rights are seriously at stake.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel A Horizontal Meta-effect? Theorising Human Rights in the AI Act and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

Nächstes Kapitel AI-Based Decision-Making and the Human Oversight Requirement Under the AI Act

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

When discussing the potentiality and challenges of machine learning algorithms, this paper will make use of the general term ‘algorithm’, for readability.

See, e.g. Dourish (2016); Gillespie (2014); Mayer-Schoenberger and Cukier (2013).

When referring generically to rights, this paper intends to make reference to fundamental rights.

For an interesting overview of the constitutional limits of AI, see Simoncini and Longo (2021).

Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2016/C 202/01) 7.6.2016.

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950. Expand on use for reference on RoL and not application from individuals.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2016/C 202/02) OJ C 326, 26.20.2012).

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A European agenda for the collaborative economy’ COM/2016/0356 final, p. 3.

The term ‘profiling’ is used as defined in Article 4, point (4), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

The topic of personalized advertisement and adv targeting is extremely relevant nowadays and raises a lot of discussion on the impact that it has on users’ fundamental rights. It is advised to read more in depth into it, for instance: Neumann (2016), p. 13; Imana et al. (2021); Ali et al. (2021).

Under the EU General Data Protection Regulation and EU case law, IP addresses (both static and dynamic) are considered personal data, if it is legally and practically possible for the website operator to obtain additional data from the ISP to identify the visitor. See, among others, CJEU Case C-582/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:779; CJEU Case C-70/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:771.

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC.

There is a specific sectoral legislation regulating the use of location data or the use of cookies: Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (e-Privacy Directive), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002; Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

Recital 26 and Article 4(5) GDPR. The GDPR protects personal data regardless of the technology used for processing that data (Recital 15 GDPR).

However, the EU ‘fully recognise(s) that the protection of personal data is a fundamental right and that therefore personal data cannot be considered as a commodity’. See Recital 24, Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, OJ L 136, 22.5.2019.

Gartner’s IT glossary defines ‘Big data’ as ‘high-volume, high-velocity and/or high-variety information assets that demand cost-effective, innovative forms of information processing that enable enhanced insight, decision making, and process automation’ (see https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/big-data).

See, for instance, the discussion of Pasquale over the use of profiling in judicial cases and the reference to the COMPAS case. Pasquale (2017) (see https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/06/01/151447/secret-algorithms-threaten-the-rule-of-law/).

Recital 24 GDPR. More explicitly, the Working Party 29 emphasizes in their guidelines that simply assessing or classifying individuals based on characteristics could be considered profiling, with or without predictive purpose. In any case, if online platforms profile users, the latter have the right to be informed of this and of the consequences of such profiling. Working Party 29, Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679, 17/EN WP251 rev. 01, 6 February 2018.

Article 13 and 14 GDPR.

Nevertheless, controllers can continue to process the data over a subject’s objection if they additionally prove that the impact to the data subject is limited to the minimum necessary and the objective is critical for the organization. Article 22(2) GDPR.

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts, COM/2021/206 final.

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.

Recitals 67 and 70 DSA. Recital 67 mentions that the rules on dark patterns should be interpreted ‘as covering prohibited practices falling within the scope of this Regulation to the extent that those practices are not already covered under GDPR’.

Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, pp. 1–66.

Recital 33 DMA.

Article 6(2) para 2 specifies that ‘data that is not publicly available shall include any aggregated and non-aggregated data generated by business users that can be inferred from, or collected through, the commercial activities of business users or their customers, including click, search, view and voice data, on the relevant core platform services or on services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper’.

It suffices to see how this auto-imposed self-regulatory power of private industry has produced a plethora of vague, high-level documents containing value statements and promises of action. However, they very rarely contain specific, practical recommendations and often fail to address fundamental normative tensions embedded in conflicts between Principles (e.g. between Principles of fairness, privacy, and explainability). More on this topic can be read in: Fjeld et al. (2020); IEEE (2017) (see: https://iapp.org/resources/article/ethically-aligned-design-a-vision-for-prioritizing-human-wellbeing-with-artificial-intelligence-and-autonomous-systems/).

Concerns have been raised over the fact that representatives of industry are being given too much leeway in shaping AI regulations. For instance, Benkler (2019).

Celeste (2019).

Suzor believes that self-regulation of online platforms is legitimate, even if unilaterally established because users provide their consent to it. He argued that constitutional law plays a twofold role in the limitation of private power. Since these self-regulations could infringe on fundamental rights, they are to be subjected to the limitations imposed by contract law as well as by the principles established by the State (e.g. the rule of law) (Suzor 2018).

Coeckelbergh (2019), p. 33.

For instance, an interesting study on the impact that algorithms have on individuals access to education, access to credit (within the US credit score systems), job opportunities and health insurance coverage among other areas, see O’Neil (2016); or Pasquale (2016).

As Celeste point out in his analysis of the new digital constitutional, citing Sartor, he underlined that there is not a precise hierarchy between private self-regulation and state law. Instead, these two sources as melding together ‘in a “mesh” of public and private governance schemes’ (Celeste 2019; Sartor 2017).

Barry (2015) (see https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-42522).

Allen (2016).

Confessore (2018) (see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html).

Pagallo (2018).

To read more about ‘algorithmic capitalism’—which use AI to increasingly link economics and politics to certain forms of knowledge—see Bodei (2019).

Among others, see Danaher (2016); Mittlestadt et al. (2016); Gillespie (2014).

See, inter alia, four judgments by the CJEU from 2018, which definitively establish the direct effect of Article 21, Article 31(2), and Article 47 of the Charter in the adjudication of litigations between private parties.

Karavas and Teubner (2005); Frantziou (2015).

Wiedemann (2022).

Cit. Wiedemann (2022), p. 2.

CJEU Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, EU:C:2010:662. See also Tene and Polonetsky (2013).

Inter alia, CJEU Case C-252/21; CJEU Case C-597/19 ECLI:EU:C:2021:492; CJEU Case C-645/19 ECLI:EU:C:2021:483.

Lyon (2001).

Newell and Marabelli (2015).

Hill (2014) (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view-uber-allegedly-stalked-users-for-party-goers-viewing-pleasure/).

CJEU Case C-930/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:430.

Hunt (2016) (see https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-AI-chatbot-gets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter).

Buolamwini and Gebru (2018).

Kay et al. (2015).

Landgericht Bonn, LG Bonn, judgment of November 16, 1999 - 10 O 457/99, openJur 2011, 77972.

Karavas (2010).

CJEU Case C-314/12, EU:C:2014:317.

Other relevant international sources of fundamental rights are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights (2011).

Raz (1977).

Suzor (2018).

This concept includes principles that are relevant within the Union and the author is aware that the latter can diverge from the conception of the rule of law from an international perspective. For this reason, the paper refers mainly to Union principles and values. However, at times reference is made to the concept of the rule of law under the ECHR in order to offer a comparative understanding of this concept for a more comprehensive analysis. It is understood that the ECHT is not directly enforceable by private parties in their relations. Nevertheless, the author believes that citing these principles can help explain the fundamental rights that can be ‘protected’ under the rule of law. As a consequence, this introduction is relevant for the subsequent discussion under the Sect. 3.1.

This is also why, under Article 49 TEU, respect for the rule of law is a precondition for EU membership. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘A new EU Framework to strengthen the rule of law’ of 11.3.2014, COM (2014) 158 final.

Communications from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions ‘Further strengthening the rule of law within the Union – State of play and possible next steps’ COM(2019)163 final and ‘Strengthening The Rule Of Law Within The Union A Blueprint For Action’ COM (2019) 343 Final; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2023 Rule of Law Report. The Rule of Law situation in the European Union, COM/2023/800.

This mechanism was recently activated for the first time against Poland and Hungary.

This led the CJEU to affirm through its case law the principle of respect for fundamental rights, by stating that fundamental rights are enshrined in the general principles of Union law protected by the CJEU: among others, CJEU Case C-1/58, ECLI:EU:C:1959:4; CJEU Joined Cases C-36/59, 37/59, 38/59, 40/59, ECLI:EU:C:1960:36, CJEU Case C-11/70 ECR 01125; CJEU Case 29/69, ECLI:EU:C:1969:57. Italian Constitutional Court Case No. 183/73, Frontini v. Ministero Delle Finanze, 27 December 1973.

For example, pursuant to CJEU Case C-64/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:395; CJEU Case C-216/18; CJEU Case C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531.

CJEU Joined Cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, para 81; 281; CJEU Case C-274/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:852, para 56; CJEU Case C-362/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, para 60; 95. See also Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, The rule of law on the Internet and in the Wider Digital World (December 2014) 8.

Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘A new EU Framework to strengthen the rule of law’ COM (2014) 158 final.

For a broader analysis, Austin and Klimchuk (2014), p. 2f.

The CJEU stated that ‘it should be remembered that the requirements flowing from the protection of fundamental rights in the Community legal order are also binding on Member States when they implement Community rules’. CJEU Case C-292/97 ECLI:EU:C:2000:202, para 37; CJEU Case C-5/88 ECLI:EU:C:1989:321; CJEU Case C-260/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:254; CJEU Case C-309/96, ECLI:EU:C:1997:631.

For a broader analysis, Austin and Klimchuk (2014), p. 2f.

For a broader analysis, Austin and Klimchuk (2014), p. 2f.; Dicey (1964), p. 193; Dworkin (1985), p. 11; Hayek (1944), p. 84; Allan (2014), p. 86.

Austin and Klimchuk (2014), p. 2.

Therefore, the ability of judiciary power (via its courts) to revise the content of agreement subjected to private law, by reference to abstract concepts—such as fundamental right or general principles of the law—may create an undesirable degree of uncertainty that purist private law scholars believe should be avoided at all cost. For a broader analysis, see Collins (2018), p. 4.

Lucy (2014), p. 46. For example, Martin Krygier recently argued that ‘[w]hether or not the rule of law has claimed in a society is a matter found in the extent and quality of its reach and effects there: in interactions between individuals and the State, of course, but of equal or more importance, between individuals themselves’ (Krygier 2011).

Allan (2014), p. 86.

Tamanaha (2004).

Although there are some legal theorists, such as Joseph Raz, who insist that the Rule of Law cannot be confused with human rights or social justice, it is possible to suppose that the substantive dimension of the Rule of Law embraces the preservation of property as a fundamental right and related aspects such as dignity and social welfare.

Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, The rule of law on the Internet and in the Wider Digital World, Issue Paper (December 2014).

Council of Europe, Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) (Resolution CM/Res(2011)24, 1353rd meeting 11 September 2019).

For example, op. cit. CJEU Case C-619/18.

Leslie et al. (2021).

Bayamlıoğlu and Leenes (2018).

In 2018, the CJEU definitively established the direct effect of the Charter in the adjudication of litigations between private parties. See CJEU Case C-414/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:257; CJEU Case C-68/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:696; CJEU Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:871; CJEU Case C-684/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:874.

Pollicino and De Gregorio (2021), p. 3.

Cit. Pollicino and De Gregorio (2021).

Fitzgerald entrusts a constitutionalising role to private law, Berman to constitutional law, Suzor to a private law informed by the principles of constitutional law, Karavas to norms produced by private actors, and finally Redeker, Gill and Gasser to the documents of Internet bill of rights. For a broad discussion around the literature on this topic, see Celeste (2019), p. 9.

Suzor (2018).

Op. cit. Suzor (2018).

Frank Pasquale, Secret Algorithms Threaten the Rule of Law MIT Tech Review (June 1 2017). Available at: www.technologyreview.com/s/608011/secret-algorithms-threaten-the-rule-of-law/; Pasquale (2015).

Karavas and Teubner (2005).

Austin and Klimchuk (2014), p. 13.

Researchers have repeatedly demanded that AI research and development move away from behind closed-door industry settings, since most companies’ self-governance commitments are failing to ensure accountability for AI systems (Whittaker et al. 2018, p. 32).

Bakant (2015), p. 281.

The CJEU has recognized direct effects between private parties of e.g. freedom of movement, the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex, the principle of equal pay for equal work and the right to collective action. See, e.g. CJEU Case 43/75, ECLI:EU:C:1976:56; CJEU Case 36/74, ECLI:EU: C:1974:140; CJEU Case 13/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:115; CJEU Case C-415/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463; CJEU Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97, ECLI:EU:C:2000:199; CJEU Case C-281/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:296; CJEU Case C-309/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:98; CJEU Case C-438/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:772; CJEU Case 149/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:130; CJEU Case C-281/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:396; CJEU Case C-333/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:512; CJEU Case C-341/05, ECLI:EU: C:2007:809.

A broad discussion can be found in Susskind (2018).

Austin (2014), p. 273.

An exercise of power is arbitrary in the sense relevant to the rule of law when ‘the agent answers only to his or her own arbitrium’. See Postema (2014), p. 17.

Cohen (2019).

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011).

Waldron (2016).

100

Greenstein (2021).

101

It is shocking for instance to mention the number of cases received by Meta Independent Oversight per year (1 million) and the number of decisions take (20!). Oversight Board first Annual Report (2022).

102

Nemitz (2018); Webb (2019).

103

Austin (2014).

104

In fact, these platforms have grown in influence to a point where they have been considered equivalent to a ‘modern day town square’. United States Supreme Court, Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. (2017).

105

Radin (2014).

Ali M et al (2021) Ad delivery algorithms: the hidden arbiters of political messaging. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 13–21

Allan TRS (2014) The rule of law as the rule of private law. In: Austin LM, Klimchuk D (eds) Private law and the rule of law. Oxford University Press

Austin (2014) The Power of the Rule of Law, in: Austin L., Klimchuk D. (eds.) Private law and the rule of law. Oxford University Press

Austin LM, Klimchuk D (2014) Private law and the rule of law. Oxford University PressCrossRef

Bakant J (2015) The invisible hand of law: private regulation and the rule of law. Cornell Int Law J:279

Bayamlıoğlu E, Leenes R (2018) The ‘rule of law’ implications of data-driven decision-making: a techno-regulatory perspective. Law Innov Technol 10(2):295–313CrossRef

Benkler Y (2019) Don’t let industry write the rules for AI. Nature 16(1):569

Bodei R (2019) Dominio e sottomissione. Schiavi, animali, macchine, Intelligenza Artificiale [eng. Domination and submission. Slaves, animals, machines, Artificial Intelligence], il Mulino

Buolamwini J, Gebru T (2018) Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proc Mach Learn Res Conf Fairness Account Transpar 81:1–15

Celeste E (2019) Digital constitutionalism: a new systematic theorisation. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 33(1):76–99CrossRef

Coeckelbergh M (2019) Artificial intelligence: some ethical issues and regulatory challenges. Technol Regul:31–34

Cohen JE (2019) Between truth and power: the legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford University PressCrossRef

Collins H (2018) Private law, fundamental rights, and the rule of law. West Va Law Rev 121(1)

Danaher J (2016) The threat of algocracy: reality, resistance and accommodation. Philos Technol 29:245CrossRef

Dicey AV (1964) Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution, 10th edn. Macmillan

Dourish P (2016) Algorithms and their others: algorithmic culture in context. Big Data Soc 3:1CrossRef

Dworkin R (1985) A matter of principle. Harvard University Press

Frantziou E (2015) The horizontal effect of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU: rediscovering the reasons for horizontality. Eur Law J:657–679

Gillespie T (2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: Gillespie T et al (eds) Media technologies: essays on communication, materiality, and society. MIT Press, p 167CrossRef

Greenstein S (2021) Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence. Artif Intell Law

Hayek FA (1944) The road to serfdom. University of Chicago Press

Imana B et al (2021) Auditing for discrimination in algorithms delivering job ads. In: Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 3767–3778

Karavas V (2010) Governance of virtual worlds and the quest for a digital constitution. In: Graber CB, Burri-Nenova M (eds) Governance of digital game environments and cultural diversity: transdisciplinary enquiries, pp 153–169

Karavas V, Teubner G (2005) Www.CompanyNameSucks.Com: the horizontal effect of fundamental rights on private parties within autonomous internet law. Constellations 12(2):262–282CrossRef

Kay M et al (2015) Unequal representation and gender stereotypes in image search results for occupations. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15)

Krygier M (2011) Four puzzles about the rule of law: why, what, where? and who cares? In: Fleming JE (ed) Getting to the rule of law. NYU Press

Leslie D et al (2021) Artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law: a primer. The Council of EuropeCrossRef

Lucy W (2014) The rule of law and private law. In: Austin LM, Klimchuk D (eds) Private law and the rule of law. Oxford University PressCrossRef

Lyon D (2001) Surveillance society: monitoring everyday life. Open University Press

Mayer-Schoenberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Mittlestadt B et al (2016) The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data Soc 3

Nemitz P (2018) Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence. Philos Trans R Soc 376(2133)

Neumann N (2016) The power of big data and algorithms for advertising and customer communication. In: 2016 International Workshop on Big Data and Information Security (IWBIS), Jakarta, Indonesia

Newell S, Marabelli M (2015) Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: a call for action on the long-term societal effects of datification. J Strateg Inf Syst 24

O’Neil C (2016) Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown, New York

Pagallo U (2018) Algo-rhythms and the beat of the legal drum. Philos Technol 31:507CrossRef

Pasquale F (2015) Black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University PressCrossRef

Pasquale F (2016) Two narratives of platform capitalism. Yale Law Policy Rev 35:309

Pollicino O, De Gregorio G (2021) Constitutional law in the algorithmic society. In: Micklitz H, Pollicino O, Reichman A, Simoncini A, Sartor G, De Gregorio G (eds) Constitutional challenges in the algorithmic society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Postema GJ (2014) Fidelity in law’s commonwealth. In: Austin LM, Klimchuk D (eds) Private law and the rule of law. Oxford University Press

Radin MJ (2014) Boilerplate: a threat to the rule of law? In: Austin LM, Klimchuk D (eds) Private law and the rule of law. Oxford University Press

Raz J (1977) The rule of law and its virtue. Law Q Rev 93:195–211

Sartor G (2017) Human rights and information technologies. In: Brownsword R et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of law, regulation and technology. Oxford University Press, pp 424–450

Simoncini A, Longo E (2021) Fundamental rights and the rule of law in the algorithmic society. In: Micklitz H et al (eds) Constitutional challenges in the algorithmic society. Cambridge University Press

Susskind J (2018) Future politics: living together in a world transformed by tech. Oxford University Press

Suzor N (2018) Digital constitutionalism: using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms. Social Media+Society 4(3):1–11

Tamanaha B (2004) On the rule of law: history, politics, theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Tene O, Polonetsky J (2013) Big data for all: privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Northwest J Technol Intellect Property 11:239

Webb A (2019) The big nine: how the tech titans and their thinking machines could warp humanity. Public Affairs U.S

Whittaker M et al (2018) AI Now 2018 Report 4

Wiedemann K (2022) Profiling and (automated) decision-making under the GDPR: a two-step approach. Comput Law Secur Rev 45

Titel: Everybody Wants To Rule the World: The Relevance of the Rule of Law for Private Law in the Context of Algorithmic Profiling of Online Users
verfasst von: Silvia A. Carretta
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions 2023
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55831-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-55832-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/16495_2023_62

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"