Cited by 88

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Challenging algorithmic profiling: The limits of data protection and anti-discrimination in responding to emergent discrimination

Mann, Monique, Matzner, Tobias·2019·Big Data & Society

Abstract

The potential for biases being built into algorithms has been known for some time (e.g., Friedman and Nissenbaum, 1996), yet literature has only recently demonstrated the ways algorithmic profiling can result in social sorting and harm marginalised groups (e.g., Browne, 2015; Eubanks, 2018; Noble, 2018). We contend that with increased algorithmic complexity, biases will become more sophisticated and difficult to identify, control for, or contest. Our argument has four steps: first, we show how harnessing algorithms means that data gathered at a particular place and time relating to specific persons, can be used to build group models applied in different contexts to different persons. Thus, privacy and data protection rights, with their focus on individuals (Coll, 2014; Parsons, 2015), do not protect from the discriminatory potential of algorithmic profiling. Second, we explore the idea that anti-discrimination regulation may be more promising, but acknowledge limitations. Third, we argue that in order to harness anti-discrimination regulation, it needs to confront emergent forms of discrimination or risk creating new invisibilities, including invisibility from existing safeguards. Finally, we outline suggestions to address emergent forms of discrimination and exclusionary invisibilities via intersectional and post-colonial analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2053951719895805

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. 10.4324/9780203814949.ch3_1_a · DOI
  2. 10.1177/0263276411417430 · DOI
  3. 10.1215/9780822375302 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1093/idpl/ipw006 · DOI
  5. Campolo A, 2017, AI now 2017 report. Technical Report
  6. Crenshaw K, 1989, The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139
  7. 10.1023/A:1020845814009 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/2053951716679678 · DOI
  9. Edwards L, 2017, Duke Law and Technology Review, 16, 18
  10. Eubanks V, 2018, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police and Punish the Poor
  11. Foucault M, 2003, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76
  12. 10.1007/978-3-642-30487-3_4 · DOI
  13. Gilliom J, 2001, Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance and the Limits of Privacy
  14. 10.1007/978-1-4020-6914-7_2 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/idpl/ipu023 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/0967010614544204 · DOI
  17. Legg S, 2007, Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography, 265
  18. Lyon D, 2001, Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life
  19. 10.1177/2053951714541861 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1177/1527476418806091 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/issj.12154 · DOI
  22. 10.1108/JICES-08-2013-0030 · DOI
  23. 10.24908/ss.v14i2.5831 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/17530350.2016.1273843 · DOI
  25. 10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5 · DOI · Paper page
  26. O’Neil C, 2016, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy
  27. 10.17645/mac.v3i3.263 · DOI
  28. 10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Peña Gangadharan S, 2012, First Monday, 17
  30. 10.1080/17579961.2018.1452176 · DOI
  31. Safari B, 2017, Seton Hall Law Review, 47, 809
  32. Sandvig C, 2016, International Journal of Communication, 10, 4972
  33. 10.1007/978-3-642-30487-3_7 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/978-1-4020-6914-7_13 · DOI
  35. 10.1093/idpl/ipx022 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.24908/ss.v1i1.3397 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/0263775816633195 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1080/13600869.2017.1298547 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/1350506806065753 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Wachter S, 2019, Columbia Business Law Review, 2, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 88

Metadata

Authors
Mann, M., & Matzner, T.
Affiliations
  • School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
  • Institut für Medienwissenschaften, Universität Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany
Venue
Big Data & Society
Published
2019-07
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
205395171989580
ISSN
2053-9517
Cited by
88
References
9
Language
en
Funders
Queensland University of Technology (Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowship (awarded to)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review