Group Privacy pp 139-158 | Cite as

From Group Privacy to Collective Privacy: Towards a New Dimension of Privacy and Data Protection in the Big Data Era

  • Alessandro ManteleroEmail author
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 126)


This chapter focuses on big data analytics and, in this context, investigates the opportunity to consider informational privacy and data protection as collective rights. From this perspective, privacy and data protection are not interpreted as referring to a given individual, but as common to the individuals that are grouped into various categories by data gatherers.

The peculiar nature of the groups generated by big data analytics requires an approach that cannot be exclusively based on individual rights. The new scale of data collection entails the recognition of a new layer, represented by groups’ need for the safeguard of their collective privacy and data protection rights.

This dimension requires a specific regulatory framework, which should be mainly focused on the legal representation of these collective interests, on the provision of a mandatory multiple-impact assessment of the use of big data analytics and on the role played by data protection authorities.


Big data Right to privacy Data protection Group privacy Risk assessment 


  1. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2013. Letter to Mr. Larry Page, Chief Executive Officer. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  2. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2013. Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  3. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2014. Statement on the role of a risk-based approach in data protection legal frameworks. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  4. Bennett, C.J. 1992. Regulating privacy: Data protection and public policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bloustein, E.J. 1977. Group privacy: The right to huddle. Rutgers School of Law 8: 219–283.Google Scholar
  6. Bloustein, E.J. 1978. Individual and group privacy. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bollier, D. 2010. The promise and perils of big data Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Program Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  8. Breckenridge, A.C. 1970. The right to privacy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brenton, M. 1964. The privacy invaders. New York: Coward-McCann.Google Scholar
  10. Bygrave, L.A. 2002. Data protection law. Approaching its rationale, logic and limits. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  11. Bygrave, L. 2004. Privacy protection in a global context. A comparative overview. Scandinavian Studies in Law 7(319): 319–348.Google Scholar
  12. Bygrave, L.A., and D.W. Schartum. 2009. Consent, proportionality and collective power. In Reinventing data protection? ed. Serge Gutwirth et al., 157–173. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calo, R.M. 2013. Consumer subject review boards: A thought experiment. Standford Law Review Online 66: 97–102.Google Scholar
  14. Cate, F.H., and Mayer-Schönberger, V. 2013. Data use and impact. Global Workshop The Center for Information Policy Research and The Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana University, Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  15. Chamoux, J. 1981. Data protection in Europe: The problem of the physical person and their legal person. Journal of Media Law & Practice 2: 70–83.Google Scholar
  16. Citron, D.K. 2008. Technological due process. Washington University Law Review 85(6): 1249–1313.Google Scholar
  17. Citron, D.K., and F. Pasquale. 2014. The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review 89(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke, R. 2009. Privacy impact assessment: Its origins and development. Computer Law & Security Review 25(2): 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, J.E. 2013. What privacy is for. Harvard Law Review 126(1904): 1933.Google Scholar
  20. Dixon, P., and R. Gellman. 2014. The scoring of America: How secret consumer scores threaten your privacy and your future. 43–46, Accessed 15 Apr 2015.
  21. Dwork, C., and D.K. Mulligan. 2013. It’s not privacy and it’s not fair. Standford Law Review Online 66: 35–40.Google Scholar
  22. Etzioni, A. 1999. The limits of privacy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. European Parliament. 2014. Resolution of 12 March 2014 on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs. Accessed 26 Feb 2015.
  24. Federal Trade Commission. 2014. Data brokers: A call for transparency and accountability. Appendix B. Accessed 14 May 2015.
  25. Finnis, J. 1984. The authority of law in the predicament of contemporary social theory. Journal of Law Ethics & Public Policy 1: 115–137.Google Scholar
  26. Flaherty, D. 2000. Privacy impact assessments: An essential tool for data protection. Privacy Law & Policy Reporter 7(5): 45 Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
  27. Floridi, L. 1999. Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 1: 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Floridi, L. 2013. The ethics of information. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Floridi, L. 2014. The 4TH revolution. How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2013. Access to data protection remedies in EU Member States. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  31. Freedland, M. 1999. Data protection and employment in the European union. An analytical study of the law and practice of data protection and the employment relationship in the EU and its member. Accessed 25 Jan 2015.
  32. Giesker, H. 1905. Das Recht der Privaten an der eigenen Geheimsphäre. Ein Beitrag zu der Lehre von den Individualrechten. Zürich: Müller.Google Scholar
  33. Gillespie, T. 2014. The relevance of algorithms. In Media technologies. Essays on communication, materiality, and society, ed. T. Gillespie, P.J. Boczkowski, and K.A. Foot, 167–194. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Golle, P. 2006. Revisiting the uniqueness of simple demographics in the US population. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on privacy in electronic society, ed. A. Juels. New York: ACM 2006.Google Scholar
  35. Gorner, J. 2013. Chicago police use ‘heat list’ as strategy to prevent violence. Officials generate analysis to predict who will likely be involved in crime, as perpetrator or victim, and go door to door to issue warnings. Chicago Tribune, August 21. Accessed 25 Feb 2015.
  36. Hendrickx, F. Undated. Protection of workers’ personal data in the European union, 33–35, 98–101. Accessed 18 Jan 2015.
  37. Hofmann, B. 2005. On value-judgments and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis 3: 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Information Commissioner’s Office. 2011. Budget 2011–12. Spending plans 2012–13 to 2014–15. 2 Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  39. Irish Data Protection Commissioner. 2012. Facebook Ireland Ltd. Report of Re-Audit. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  40. Italian Data Protection Authority. 2013. Injunction and Order Issued Against Google Inc. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  41. Kohler, J. 1907. Urheberrecht an schriftwerken und verlagsrecht. Stuttgart: F. Enke.Google Scholar
  42. Koss, K.K. 2015. Leveraging predictive policing algorithms to restore fourth amendment protections in high-crime areas in a post-wardlow world. Chicago Kent Law Review 90: 301–334.Google Scholar
  43. Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural citizenship. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Leebron, D.W. 1991. The right to privacy’s place in the intellectual history of tort law. Case Western Reserve Law Review 41: 769–810.Google Scholar
  45. Mantelero, A., and G. Vaciago. 2014. Social media and big data. In Cyber crime & cyber terrorism. Investigators’ handbook, ed. B. Akhgar, A. Staniforth, and F.M. Bosco. Waltham: Elsevie.Google Scholar
  46. Mantelero, A. 2014a. Social control, transparency, and participation in the big data world. Journal of Internet Law April, 23–29.Google Scholar
  47. Mantelero, A. 2014b. The future of consumer data protection in the E.U. Rethinking the “notice and consent” paradigm in the new era of predictive analytics. Computer Law & Security Review 30: 643–660.Google Scholar
  48. Mayer-Schönberger, V., and K. Cukier. 2013. Big data. A revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  49. Mayer-Schönberger, V. 1997. Generational development of data protection in Europe. In Technology and privacy: The new landscape, ed. P.E. Agre and M. Rotenberg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Miller, A.R. 1971. The assault on privacy computers, data banks, dossiers, 54–67. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  51. Newman, D.G. 2004. Collective interests and collective rights. American Journal of Jurisprudence 49(1): 127–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nissenbaum, H. 2010. Privacy in context. technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 231.Google Scholar
  53. Ohm, P. 2010. Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Review 57: 1701–1777.Google Scholar
  54. Packard, V. 1964. The naked society. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  55. Perry, W.L. et al. 2013. Predictive policing. The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  56. Post, R.C. 1990. Rereading warren and brandeis: Privacy, property and appropriation. Case Western Reserve Law Review 41: 647–680.Google Scholar
  57. Richards, N.M., and J.H. King. 2013. Three paradoxes of big data. Stanford Law Review 66: 41–46.Google Scholar
  58. Schudson, M. 1978. Discovering the news. A social history of American newspaper. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  59. Schütz, P. 2012. Comparing formal independence of data protection authorities in selected EU Member States. Conference Paper for the 4th Biennial ECPR Standing Group for Regulatory Governance Conference 2012. 17, fn. 73, and 18. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  60. Schwartz, P.M. 2011. Data protection law and the ethical use of analytics. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  61. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems. 1973. Records, computers and the rights of citizens. Accessed 27 Feb 2014.
  62. Simitis, S. 1987. Reviewing privacy in an information society. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 135(3): 707–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Solove, D.J. 2008. Understanding privacy. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stromhölm, S. 1967. Right of privacy and rights of personality. A comparative survey. Stockholm: Norstedt & Soners.Google Scholar
  65. Sweeney, L. 2000a. Foundations of privacy protection from a computer science perspective. In Proceedings Joint Statistical Meeting, AAAS, Indianapolis. Accessed 24 Jan 2015.
  66. Sweeney, L. 2000b. Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. Accessed 24 Jan 2015.
  67. Vedder, A.H. 1997. Privatization, information technology and privacy: Reconsidering the social responsibilities of private organizations. In Business ethics: Principles and practice, ed. Geoff Moore, 215–226. Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.Google Scholar
  68. The White House, Executive Office of the President. 2014. Big data: Seizing opportunities, preserving values Washington, DC Accessed 26 Dec 2014.
  69. Warren, S.D., and L.D. Brandeis. 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4(5): 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Westin, A.F. 1970. Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  71. Whitman, J.Q. 2004. The two western cultures of privacy: Dignity versus liberty. Yale Law Journal 113: 1151–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wright, David. 2011. A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology 13(3): 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wright, D. 2012. The state of the art in privacy impact assessment. Computer Law & Security Review 28(1): 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wright, D., and P. de Hert (eds.). 2012. Privacy impact assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Wright, D., M. Friedewald, and R. Gellert. 2015. Developing and testing a surveillance impact assessment methodology. International Data Privacy Law 5(1): 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations