首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


The chilling effects of algorithmic profiling: Mapping the issues
Institution:1. Department of Communication and Media Research (IKMZ), University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, CH-8050 Zürich;2. eLaw Center for Law and Digital Technologies, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, 2311 ES Leiden, The Netherlands;3. Department of Communication and Culture, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway;4. Center for Information Technology, Society, and Law (ITSL), University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 74 / 38, CH-8001 Zürich;5. Digital Life Initiative at Cornell Tech & Information Law Institute at NYU School of Law, Affiliate at Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, United States;1. Research and Documentation Centre, Ministry of Justice and Security, The Hague, The Netherlands;2. Creating 010, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;1. Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School, Brasil;2. Associate Professor of Law, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Abstract:In this article, we provide an overview of the literature on chilling effects and corporate profiling, while also connecting the two topics. We start by explaining how profiling, in an increasingly data-rich environment, creates substantial power asymmetries between users and platforms (and corporations more broadly). Inferences and the increasingly automated nature of decision-making, both based on user data, are essential aspects of profiling. We then connect chilling effects theory and the relevant empirical findings to corporate profiling. In this article, we first stress the relationship and similarities between profiling and surveillance. Second, we describe chilling effects as a result of state and peer surveillance, specifically. We then show the interrelatedness of corporate and state profiling, and finally spotlight the customization of behavior and behavioral manipulation as particularly significant issues in this discourse. This is complemented with an exploration of the legal foundations of profiling through an analysis of European and US data protection law. We find that while Europe has a clear regulatory framework in place for profiling, the US primarily relies on a patchwork of sector-specific or state laws. Further, there is an attempt to regulate differential impacts of profiling via anti-discrimination statutes, yet few policies focus on combating generalized harms of profiling, such as chilling effects. Finally, we devise four concise propositions to guide future research on the connection between corporate profiling and chilling effects.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号