Automated Processing of Personal Data for the Evaluation of Personality Traits: Legal and Ethical Issues
Open accessAbstract
This paper examines the approach under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to profiling and (automated) decision-making as well as the corresponding legal and ethical implications. The definition of profiling under the GDPR is analysed in relation to different degrees of automation when it comes to decision-making based on the processing of personal or non-personal data. A two-step approach to profiling and decision-making, which can be found in the structure and wording of the GDPR, is described and analysed. It is argued that the use of this model helps understand how profiling and decision-making are conducted and how the two steps are interconnected. Furthermore, the two-step approach allows to identify various legal implications of profiling and the corresponding decision-making, such as those related to privacy and economic freedom. Further, the discussion of ethical aspects draws on two recent and controversial use cases. The first example deals with discriminatory effects that may result from profiling. The second one concerns opaque automated decision-making in the context of credit scoring. This ethical assessment is based on the ethical framework supplied by the wording of the GDPR.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The digital abstraction of personality and ability profiles from real-world data without psychometric testing raises issues for transparency and consent.
“the digital abstraction of personality and ability profiles from real world data without the need for psychometric testing, which raises issues for transparency and consent (Wiedemann, 2018).”
From People analytics—A scoping review of conceptual boundaries and value propositions (2018) · cites this paper as Wiedemann, 2018
Cites
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017) · International Data Privacy Law · doi:10.1093/idpl/ipx005 · Cited by 1,308 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
People analytics—A scoping review of conceptual boundaries and value propositions
Tursunbayeva, A., Di Lauro, S., & Pagliari, C. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.08.002 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wiedemann, K.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Wiedemann, Klaus
- ORCID
- Wiedemann, Klaus
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2810246961
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2018: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- General Data Protection Regulation, automated decision-making, profiling, personality traits, two-step approach, privacy, economic freedom, algorithmic discrimination, credit scoring, opacity, personal data protection
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