CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 156Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Privacy as Protection of the Incomputable Self: From Agnostic to Agonistic Machine Learning

Open access
Hildebrandt, Mireille·2019·Theoretical Inquiries in Law
DOI 10.1515/til-2019-0004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This Article takes the perspective of law and philosophy, integrating insights from computer science. First, I will argue that in the era of big data analytics we need an understanding of privacy that is capable of protecting what is uncountable, incalculable or incomputable about individual persons. To instigate this new dimension of the right to privacy, I expand previous work on the relational nature of privacy, and the productive indeterminacy of human identity it implies, into an ecological understanding of privacy, taking into account the technological environment that mediates the constitution of human identity. Second, I will investigate how machine learning actually works, detecting a series of design choices that inform the accuracy of the outcome, each entailing trade-offs that determine the relevance, validity and reliability of the algorithm’s accuracy for real life problems. I argue that incomputability does not call for a rejection of machine learning per se but calls for a research design that enables those who will be affected by the algorithms to become involved and to learn how machines learn — resulting in a better understanding of their potential and limitations. A better understanding of the limitations that are inherent in machine learning will deflate some of the eschatological expectations, and provide for better decision-making about whether and if so how to implement machine learning in specific domains or contexts. I will highlight how a reliable research design aligns with purpose limitation as core to its methodological integrity. This Article, then, advocates a practice of “agonistic machine learning” that will contribute to responsible decisions about the integration of data-driven applications into our environments while simultaneously bringing them under the Rule of Law. This should also provide the best means to achieve effective protection against overdetermination of individuals by machine inferences .

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/til-2019-0004

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–156 of 156

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hildebrandt, M.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Hildebrandt, Mireille
ORCID
Hildebrandt, Mireille
Venue
Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
83-121
ISSN
  • 1565-1509 (ISSN-L)
  • 1565-3404
DOI
10.1515/til-2019-0004
OpenAlex
W2772974342
Cited by
153
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 5
FWCI
194.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Theoretical Inquiries in Law (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
right to privacy, incomputability, human identity, big data analytics, algorithmic accountability, algorithmic transparency, purpose limitation, responsible AI deployment, rule of law

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