Data Privacy

This book will be published in the second half of 2025. It has eight chapters: 1. privacy; 2. the attention economy; 3. nudging; 4. echo chambers and polarization; 5. misinformation; 6. cancel culture: online shaming and caring; 7. friendship; and 8. the duty to quit. Each chapter has several cases to prompt discussion and reflection, as well as a glossary of key terms and an annotated bibliography.

AI-enabled predictive analytics is widely deployed in clinical care settings for healthcare monitoring, diagnostics and risk management. The technology may offer valuable insights into individual and population health patterns, trends and outcomes. Predictive analytics may, however, also tangibly affect individual patient privacy and the right thereto. On the one hand, predictive analytics may undermine a patient’s state of privacy by constructing or modifying their health identity independent of the patient themselves. On the other hand, the use of predictive analytics may (...) violate the patient’s right to privacy if the patient has no control over the use or output of the technology. These repercussions ultimately erode patient autonomy and agency. This paper discusses these implications in further detail, and proposes possible measures for their mitigation. They involve the incorporation in the AI systems of accuracy-enhancing statistical models and methods, more privacy-conscious institutional policies and practices, and effective choice for patients to accept or refuse diagnostics and treatment drawing on AI-enabled predictive analytics. (shrink)

The Internet is humanity’s currently dominant technologically-enabled means of communication. It provides unprecedented options for exercising and frustrating human rights. To understand how human rights are promoted and threatened in our digital world, one thus needs to understand how the Internet affects them. Internet access has become so important for people that it has been argued it should itself be recognized as a human right. This chapter provides an overview of the Internet’s beneficial and detrimental effects on human rights as (...) well as some considerations for and against a human right to Internet access. Understanding how the Internet affects human rights is essential for comprehending the moral significance of this medium, which is so much more than an optional technology of convenience. (shrink)

This paper argues that if the critics of the currently dominant notice-and-consent model of governing digital data transactions are correct, then they should oppose political reforms of the model. The crux of the argument is as follows: the reasons the critics give for doubting the effectiveness of notice-and-consent in protecting user privacy (namely, ordinary users’ various cognitive deficiencies and the inherent inscrutability of the subject matter) are also reasons for doubting the effectiveness of protecting user privacy through democratic or regulatory (...) means. Furthermore, insofar as attempts to improve the notice-and-consent model through more legislation or regulation would also involve more coercion than the status quo, they should be resisted on normative grounds. So, out of the bad options we have when it comes to protecting digital privacy, it seems – contrary to the majority position advanced in the literature – that we should stick with notice-and-consent. (shrink)

An issue about the privacy of the clustered groups designed by algorithms arises when attempts are made to access certain pieces of information about those groups that would likely be used to harm them. Therefore, limitations must be imposed regarding accessing such information about clustered groups. In the discourse on group privacy, it is argued that the right to privacy of such groups should be recognised to respect group privacy, protecting clustered groups against discrimination. According to this viewpoint, this right (...) places a duty on others, for example, private companies, institutions, and governments, to refrain from accessing such information. To defend the idea that the right to privacy should be recognised for clustered groups, at least two requirements must be satisfied. First, clustered group privacy must be conceived of as either a collective good or a participatory good. Since these forms of good are of the type from which no member of a group can be excluded from benefiting, the right to them is defined as a group right. Second, there must be group interests on which to base a group right. Group interests can be either the interests of those members that are a result of their being in the group or the interests of the group as a whole that transcend the interests of its members. However, this paper argues that clustered group privacy cannot be conceived of as either a collective or a participatory good because it is possible for some individuals to be excluded from benefiting from it. Furthermore, due to the lack of awareness among individuals that they are members of a clustered group and the nature of a clustered group itself, such groups cannot have the group interests necessary to establish a group right. Hence, the group right to privacy cannot be recognised for these groups, implying that the group right cannot be considered a means to protect clustered groups against discrimination. Instead, this paper suggests that moral principles need to be articulated within an ethics of vulnerability to identify the moral obligations of protecting vulnerable clustered groups. The duty owed to the vulnerable should involve refraining from accessing certain information about clustered groups in specific contexts. This duty is not engendered by the right to privacy of such groups; it is the duty owed to the vulnerable. The findings highlight the need to articulate moral principles regarding privacy and data protection to protect clustered groups in contexts in which accessing information about them could constitute a reason for discriminatory targeting. (shrink)

This paper presents an account of the right to privacy that is inspired by classic control views on this right and recent developments in moral psychology. The core idea is that the right to privacy is the right that others not make personal information about us flow unless this flow is an expression of and does not conflict with our deep self. The nature of the deep self will be spelled out in terms of stable intrinsic desires. The paper argues (...) that this view has advantages over alternative accounts of the right to privacy, that it is extensionally adequate in interesting test cases, that there is a good reason to think that the right to privacy, thus understood, can be justified, and that this view helps identify what kind of information is protected by the right to privacy. (shrink)

"Merten Reglitz makes a case for a new human right to free Internet access, arguing it is crucial for protecting and advancing fundamental moral interests. He examines the risks the Internet poses to our most important rights if it is not safeguarded by public institutions"--.

Training artificial intelligence (AI) systems requires vast quantities of data, and AI developers face a variety of barriers to accessing the information they need. Synthetic data has captured researchers’ and industry’s imagination as a potential solution to this problem. While some of the enthusiasm for synthetic data may be warranted, in this short paper we offer critical counterweight to simplistic narratives that position synthetic data as a cost-free solution to every data-access challenge—provocations highlighting ethical, political, and governance issues the use (...) of synthetic data can create. We question the idea that synthetic data, by its nature, is exempt from privacy and related ethical concerns. We caution that framing synthetic data in binary opposition to “real” measurement data could subtly shift the normative standards to which data collectors and processors are held. And we argue that by promising to divorce data from its constituents—the people it represents and impacts—synthetic data could create new obstacles to democratic data governance. (shrink)

Privacy matters because it shields us from possible abuses of power. Human beings need privacy just as much as they need community. Our need for socialization brings with it risks and burdens which in turn give rise to the need for spaces and time away from others. To impose surveillance upon someone is an act of domination. The foundations of democracy quiver under surveillance. -/- This book is intended to contribute to a better understanding of privacy from a philosophical point (...) of view-what it is, what is at stake in its loss, and how it relates to other rights and values. The five parts that compose this book respond to five basic questions about privacy: Where does privacy come from? What is privacy? Why does privacy matter? What should we do about privacy? Where are we now? (shrink)

Differential privacy (DP) aims to confer data processing systems with inherent privacy guarantees, offering strong protections for personal data. But DP’s approach to privacy carries with it certain assumptions about how mathematical abstractions will be translated into real-world systems, which—if left unexamined and unrealized in practice—could function to shield data collectors from liability and criticism, rather than substantively protect data subjects from privacy harms. This article investigates these assumptions and discusses their implications for using DP to govern data-driven systems. In (...) Parts 1 and 2, we introduce DP as, on one hand, a mathematical framework and, on the other hand, a kind of real-world sociotechnical system, using a hypothetical case study to illustrate how the two can diverge. In Parts 3 and 4, we discuss the way DP frames privacy loss, data processing interventions, and data subject participation, arguing it could exacerbate existing problems in privacy regulation. In part 5, we conclude with a discussion of DP’s potential interactions with the endogeneity of privacy law, and we propose principles for best governing DP systems. In making such assumptions and their consequences explicit, we hope to help DP succeed at realizing its promise for better substantive privacy protections. (shrink)

Abstract:For Dewey, growth in the educative process means education that enriches and expands one’s experience as it prepares students for not only a vocation but also entry into and transaction with the world. In few places can we see growth, generally understood, to be occurring as fast as in big data technology. This essay begins with an overview of what big data is, specifically what big data looks like in education as understood through learning management system platforms but also data (...) as understood generally on a college campus through dataveillance, or data surveillance understood as the monitoring or possibility of monitoring of one’s data or online activity. In so doing, this essay acknowledges a selection of privacy concerns and educational challenges resulting from big data. I then proceed to the employment of intelligent technology in education with particular emphasis on algorithms and “algorithmic nudging.” I conclude with a Deweyan analysis of technology as continuous with culture and a discussion about the educational needs for technological environments to aid in the proper cultivation of individuals. (shrink)