CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AILegal and Labor Studies

Restricting access to AI decision-making in the public interest: The justificatory role of proportionality and its balancing factors

Open access
Warthon, Margaret·2024·Internet Policy Review
DOI 10.14763/2024.3.1801
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the European Union, individuals subject to fully automated AI-based decisions by the government have the right to request access to the processing information under Article 15(1)(h) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, this right may be restricted on public interest grounds, such as preventing system manipulation to ensure the effectiveness of the law or reducing excessive burdens on public officials to maintain efficiency in government operations. The principle of proportionality is a key instrument to assess the legality and legitimacy of such restrictions, yet its application has been largely overlooked in discussions concerning the competing public interests under Article 15(1)(h) of the GDPR. This paper draws on legal and interdisciplinary scholarship, as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to explore the role of proportionality and its balancing factors in shaping justifications for public interest restrictions on the data protection right of access to AI decision-making information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14763/2024.3.1801

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Anthony, G. (2013). Public interest and the three dimensions of judicial review. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 64(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v64i2.339 Article · DOI
  2. Bambauer, J., & Zarsky, T. (2018). The algorithm game. Notre Dame Law Review, 94(1). https://scholar ship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol94/iss1/1
  3. Barak, A. (2010). Proportionality and principled balancing rights, balancing & proportionality. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 4(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1041 · DOI
  4. Barry, B. M. (1964). The public interest (I). Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 38(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/38.1. · DOI
  5. Beatty, D. M. (2004). Proportionality. In The ultimate rule of law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.o rg/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269808.003. · DOI
  6. In O. Spijkers, W. G. Werner, & R. A. Wessel (Eds.), Netherlands yearbook of international law 2019 (pp. 289-307).
  7. ipab020 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Boot, E. R. (2024). The public interest: Clarifying a legal concept. Ratio Juris, 37(2), 110-129. http s://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12401 · DOI
  9. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt37c
  10. Brunton, F., & Nissenbaum, H. F. (2015). Obfuscation: A user's guide for privacy and protest. The MIT Press.
  11. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 81, 77-91. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
  12. Cofone, I. N., & Strandburg, K. J. (2019). Strategic games and algorithmic secrecy. McGill Law Journal, 64(4), 623-663. https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/strategic-games-and-algorithmic-secrecy/
  13. Coglianese, C., & Lehr, D. (2019). Transparency and algorithmic governance. Administrative Law Review, 71(1), 1-56. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3293008
  14. Cohen-Eliya, M., & Porat, I. (2011). Proportionality and the culture of justification. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 59(2), 463-490. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23045668
  15. aba9647 · DOI · Paper page
  16. da Silva, V. A. (2011). Comparing the incommensurable: Constitutional principles, balancing and rational decision. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31(2), 273-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqr00 · DOI
  17. Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017). Slave to the algorithm: Why a right to an explanation is probably not the remedy you are looking for. Duke Law & Technology Review, 16, 18-84. https://scholarship.la w.duke.edu/dltr/vol16/iss1/2
  18. Endicott, T. (2021). Administrative law (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/ 9780192893567.001.0001 · DOI
  19. Feintuck, M. (2004). 'The public interest' in regulation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.109 3/acprof:oso/9780199269020.001.0001 · DOI
  20. Fussey, P., Davies, B., & Innes, M. (2021). ' Assisted' facial recognition and the reinvention of suspicion and discretion in digital policing. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(2), 325-344. http s://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa068 · DOI
  21. Gerards, J. (2020). The age of balancing revisited? European Data Protection Law Review, 6(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2020/1/5 · DOI
  22. Giannopoulou, A., Ausloos, J., Delacroix, S., & Janssen, H. (2022). Intermediating data rights exercises: The role of legal mandates. International Data Privacy Law, 12(4), 316-331. https://doi.or g/10.1093/idpl/ipac017 · DOI
  23. Goldenfein, J. (2024). Lost in the loop: Who is the 'human' of the human in the loop (No. 4750634). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4750634 · DOI
  24. -2_17 · DOI
  25. Herlin-Karnell, E. (2021). EU data protection and the principle of proportionality. Nordic Journal of European Law, 4(2), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v4i2.23782 · DOI
  26. Jackson, V. (2015). Constitutional law in an age of proportionality. The Yale Law Journal, 124(8), 3094-3196. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/constitutional-law-in-an-age-of-proportionalit y
  27. In S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner, & A. Ward (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A commentary (2nd ed.). Hart Publishing.
  28. Mahieu, R. (2023). The right of access to personal data in the EU [Doctoral dissertation]. https://resear chportal.vub.be/en/publications/the-right-of-access-to-personal-data-in-the-eu-a-legal-and-empiri
  29. Mahieu, R., van Hoboken, J., & Asghari, H. (2019). Responsibility for data protection in a networked world: On the question of the controller, ' effective and complete protection' and its application to data access rights in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 10(1). https://www.jipitec.eu/archive/issues/jipitec-10-1-2019/4879
  30. Matulionyte, R. (2021). Reconciling trade secrets and AI explainability: Face recognition technologies as a case study (No. 3974221). Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3974221
  31. Meyerson, M., & Banfield, E. C. (1955). Politics, planning, and the public interest: The case of public housing in Chicago. Free Press.
  32. Neto, P. C., Gonçalves, T., Pinto, J. R., Silva, W., Sequeira, A. F., Ross, A., & Cardoso, J. S. (2022). Causality-inspired taxonomy for explainable artificial intelligence (Version 2). arXiv. https://doi.org/1 0.48550/ARXIV.2208.09500 · DOI
  33. Peters, A. (2021). A plea for proportionality: A reply to Yun-chien Chang and Xin Dai. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 19(3), 1135-1145. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab071 · DOI
  34. Pulido, C. B. (2006). The Rationality of Balancing. Archiv Für Rechts-Und Sozialphilosophie, 92(2), 195-208. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23681588
  35. Sauter, W. (2013). Proportionality in EU Law: A balancing act? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 15, 439-466.
  36. Schauer, F. (2014). Proportionality and the question of weight. In G. Huscroft, B. W. Miller, & G. Webber (Eds.), Proportionality and the rule of law: Rights, justification, reasoning (pp. 173-185). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107565272.011 · DOI
  37. Schmidt-Wudy, F. (2021). In B. -W. Wolff/Brink F. (2021) in Wolff/Brink, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht. 35th Edition, C. H. Beck, Münche (Ed.), BeckOK Datenschutzrecht [BeckOK Data Protection Law].
  38. Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (4th ed.).
  39. Sorauf, F. (1962). The Conceptual Muddle. In C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), Nomos V: The public interest.
  40. Stone, A. (2020). Proportionality and Its alternatives. Federal Law Review, 48(1), 123-153. https://do i.org/10.1177/0067205X19890448 · DOI
  41. Sunstein, C. R. (1993). Incommensurability and valuation in law. Michigan Law Review, 92(4), 779-861. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol92/iss4/2
  42. Tridimas, T. (2023). Wreaking the wrongs: Balancing rights and the public interest in the EU way. Columbia Journal of European Law, 29(2), 185-213. https://cjel.law.columbia.edu/files/2023/04/10. -T RIDIMAS-PROOF.pdf
  43. Waldron, J. (2006). Safety and security. Nebraska Law Review, 85(2), 454-507. https://digitalcommon s.unl.edu/nlr/vol85/iss2/5
  44. Wyatt, D. (2020). The anaemic existence of the overriding public interest in disclosure in the EU's access to documents regime. German Law Journal, 21(4), 686-701. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.202 0.37 · DOI
  45. Zanfir-Fortuna, G. (2020). Article 15 Right of access by the data subject. In C. Kuner, L. A. Bygrave, C. Docksey, & L. Drechsler (Eds.), The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A commentary (pp. 449-468). Oxford University PressNew York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826491.003.004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Warthon, M.
Venue
Internet Policy Review
Publisher
Internet Policy Review, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Published
2024-09-30
Volume
13
Issue
3
ISSN
2197-6775 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.14763/2024.3.1801
OpenAlex
W4403466576
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
10.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Internet Policy Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
Keywords
automated decision-making, right of access to information, Article 15 GDPR, proportionality, balancing factors, European Court of Justice case law, data protection law, legal effectiveness

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