Who is Profiling Who? Invisible Visibility

The assumption of the conference on ‘Reinventing Data Protection?’ was that data protection and privacy are not the same thing, though they may overlap. One of the questions raised by advanced data processing techniques like data mining and profiling is whether the assumption that it is data that need to be protected still holds.1 The data protection directive of 1995 builds on the concept of personal data, defined as data that relate to an identified or identifiable natural person.2

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York, BallantineGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonner, W. and M. Chiasson (2005). “If fair information principles are the answer, what was the question? An actor-network theory investigation of the modern constitution of privacy.” Information and Organization 15: 267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourcier, D. (2001). “De l’intelligence artificielle à la personne virtuelle: émergence d’une entité juridique?” Droit et Société 49: 847–871Google Scholar
  4. Bygrave, L. (2001). Minding the Machine. Article 15 and the EC Data Protection Directive and automated profiling. Computer Law & Security Report. 17: 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Custers, B. (2004). The Power of Knowledge. Ethical, Legal, and Technological Aspects of Data Mining and Group Profiling in Epidemiology. Nijmegen, Wolf Legal PublishersGoogle Scholar
  6. De Hert, P. and S. Gutwirth (2006). Privacy, Data Protection and Law Enforcement. Opacity of the Individual and Transparency of Power. Privacy and the Criminal Law. E. Claes, A. Duff and S. Gutwirth. Antwerpen Oxford, IntersentiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1927). The Public & Its Problems. Chicago, The Swallow PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Dötzer, F. (2005). Privacy Issues in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Dubrovnik, available at: http://www13.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/personen/doetzer/publications/Doetzer-05-PrivacyIssuesVANETs.pdf.
  9. Fayyad, U. M., G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, et al., Eds. (1996). Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Meno Park, California, Cambridge, Mass., London England, AAAI Press / MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Hildebrandt, M. (2006a). “From Data to Knowledge: The challenges of a crucial technology.” DuD – Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 30: 548–552Google Scholar
  11. Hildebrandt, M. (2006b). Privacy and Identity. Privacy and the Criminal Law. E. Claes, A. Duff and S. Gutwirth. Antwerpen – Oxford, Intersentia: 43–58Google Scholar
  12. Hildebrandt, M. (2008a). Defining Profiling: A New Type of Knowledge. Profiling the European Citizen. A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. M. Hildebrandt and S. Gutwirth, Springer: 17–30Google Scholar
  13. Hildebrandt, M. (2008b). A Vision of Ambient Law. Regulating Technologies. R. Brownsword and K. Yeung. Oxford, Hart: 175–191Google Scholar
  14. Hildebrandt, M. and S. Gutwirth (2007). “(Re)presentation, pTA citizens’ juries and the jury trial.” Utrecht Law Review 3 (1): http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/
  15. Hildebrandt, M. and B.-J. Koops (2007). A Vision of Ambient Law. Brussels, FIDISGoogle Scholar
  16. Hudson, B. (2005). Secrets of Self: Punishment and the Right to Privacy. Privacy and the Criminal Law. E. Claes and A. Duff. Antwerp Oxford, IntersentiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Kallinikos, J. (2006). The Consequences of Information. Institutional Implications of Technological Change. Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA, USA, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  18. Keymolen, E. (2006). Onzichtbare Zichtbaarheid. Helmuth Plessner ontmoet profiling. Bachelor Thesis Faculty of Philosophy. Rotterdam, not publishedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York, Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  20. Lessig, L. (2006). Code Version 2.0. New York, Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  21. Lévy, P. (1990). Les technologies de l’intelligence. L’avenir à l’ère informatique. Paris, La DécouverteGoogle Scholar
  22. Mead, G. H. (1959/1934). Mind, Self & Society. From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago – Illinois, The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Peirce, C. S. (1997). Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking. The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism. Albany, State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Prins, J. E. J. (2004). “The Propertization of Personal Data and Identities.” Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, available at http://www.ejcl.org/ 8(3)
  25. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as Another. Chicago, The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Rouvroy, A. (2008). “Privacy, data protection and the unprecedented challenges of Ambient Intelligence.” (2) Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology, Issue 1, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1013984
  27. Schwartz, P. M. (2000). “Beyond Lessig’s Code for Internet Privacy: Cyberspace Filters, Privacy-Control and Fair Information Practices.” Wisconsin Law Review 4: 743–788Google Scholar
  28. Vedder, A. (1999). “KDD: The challenge to individualism.” Ethics and Information Technology 1: 275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zarsky, T. Z. (2002–2003). “‘Mine Your Own Business!’: Making the Case for the Implications of the Data Mining or Personal Information in the Forum of Public Opinion.” Yale Journal of Law & Technology 5 (4): 17–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law Science Technology & Society, Belgium Erasmus School of LawVrije Universiteit Brussel, Erasmus University Rotterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations