The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Privacy as Protection of the Incomputable Self: From Agnostic to Agonistic Machine Learning
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Closer to the notion of justification, [43] relies on 'debates' between two competing algorithms exchanging arguments and counterarguments to convince a human user that their classification is correct.”
From Beyond explainability: justifiability and contestability of algorithmic decision systems (2022) · cites this paper as [43]
In the citing paper
“However, the goal of this work is to 'align an agent's actions with the values and preferences of humans' which is seen as a 'training-time problem'.”
From Beyond explainability: justifiability and contestability of algorithmic decision systems (2022) · cites this paper as [43]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why they Matter and How to Address them
Santoni de Sio, F., & Mecacci, G. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00450-x · Cited by 490
“There has recently been a big legal and political debate on the extent to which the introduction of AI-based automated (administrative) decision-making is desirable and legitimate (European Commission, 2019; Hildebrandt, 2019; Noto La Diega, 2018).”
BackgroundCheong, B. C. (2024) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2024.1421273 · Cited by 445
“Wellbeing, in the context of AI governance, refers to the overall quality of life and flourishing of individuals and society, encompassing aspects such as physical and mental health, safety, privacy, autonomy, fairness, and social cohesion (Floridi et al., 2018; IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous Intelligen…”
BackgroundInfluentialTrustworthy ai: A computational perspective
Liu, H., Wang, Y., Fan, W., Liu, X., Li, Y., Jain, S., Liu, Y., Jain, A., & Tang, J. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3546872 · Cited by 261
Trust and trustworthiness in AI ethics
Reinhardt, K. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-022-00200-5 · Cited by 157
Thinking Outside the Black-Box: The Case for “Algorithmic Sovereignty” in Social Media
Reviglio, U., & Agosti, C. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120915613 · Cited by 172
“As Hildebrandt (2019) advocates, societies must demand companies to explore and enable alternative ways of datafying and modeling the same person.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Hildebrandt, M.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
- Corresponding author
- 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
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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