Article Sidebar

Submitted
Dec 28, 2022
Published
Dec 28, 2022
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 405 Download : 246

Main Article Content

Abstract

The law has become increasingly interested in issues related to algorithmic biases and decisions, particularly from the perspectives of the collection, use, and processing of personal data. The complex constellation of fundamental rights challenged by the new technologies is opening the door to an inedited concept of identity, citizenship, and city, shortening the distances between the world of the bits and the world of the atoms. Nonetheless, the legal issues at stake are profound and involve enforcing such rights and designing proper procedural mechanisms. In this sense, a crucial role is that of the courts since they have been and are called to find new stages of protection and guarantees. Therefore, with the aim to prove the necessity of a solid and by-design procedural mechanism, this paper is going to analyze those issues through the lenses of the krasis between algorithms and freedom of expression, and algorithms and data protection, while taking as a meaningful example the difficult enforceability of the right to erasure in the context of the algorithmic society.

Keywords

Digital Citizenship

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

How to Cite
Pollicino, O., & Paolucci, F. (2022). Digital constitutionalism to the test of the smart identity. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 18(3), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135815

References

  1. Alexy, R. (2022). A Theory of Constitutional Rights (pp. 570-71). Oxford, Oxford University Press. See
  2. Ausloos, J. (2016). The Interaction between the Rights to Object and to Erasure in the GDPR’ (CITIP blog, 25 August 2016) at https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/blog/gdpr-update-the-interaction-between-the-right-to-object-and-the-right-to- erasure/
  3. Balkin, J. (2018). Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation’ 51. UC Davis Law Review 1149.
  4. Balkin, J.M. (2012). Free Speech Is a Triangle. 118 Columbia Law Review 2011.
  5. Bassini, M. (2019). Fundamental Rights and Private Enforcement in the Digital Age. European Law Journal 182, 25(2).
  6. Bassini, M., Liguori, L., & Pollicino, O. (2018). Sistemi Di Intelligenza Artificiale, Responsabilità e Accountability. Verso Nuovi Paradigmi?’, in Franco Pizzetti (Eds), Intelligenza artificiale, protezione dei dati personali e regolazione. Giappichelli.
  7. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
  8. Berman, P.S. (2000). Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to “Private” Regulation. 71 University of Colorado Law Review 1263.
  9. Black, J., & Murray, A.D. (2019). Regulating AI and Machine Learning: Setting the Regulatory Agenda. 10 European journal of law and technology.
  10. Cabral, T.S. (2020). Forgetful AI: AI and the Right to Erasure under the GDPR. 6 European Data Protection Law Review 378.
  11. Custers, B. (2022). New Digital Rights: Imagining Additional Fundamental Rights for the Digital Era. 44 Computer Law & Security Review 105636.
  12. Daskal, J., & Perault, M. (22 May 2020). The Apple-Google Contact Tracing System Won’t Work. It Still Deserves Praise’, Slate at https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/apple-google-contact- tracing-app-privacy.html
  13. De Gregorio, G. (2019). Democratising Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework’ 36. Computer Law and Security Review 1.
  14. De Gregorio, G. (2022). Digital Constitutionalism in Europe: Reframing Rights and Powers in the Algorithmic Society. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009071215
  15. De Gregorio, G., & Dunn, P. (2022). The European Risk-Based Approaches: Connecting Constitutional Dots in the Digital Age’ 59. Common Market Law Review at https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/59.2/COLA2022032 accessed 20 May 2022.
  16. della Cananea, G. (2016). Due Process of Law Beyond the State. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  17. Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services (2019). Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation: Can Distributed Ledgers Be Squared with European Data Protection Law? (Publications Office 2019) at https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/535
  18. Dupré, C. (2016). The Age of Dignity. Human Rights and Constitutionalism in Europe. Oxford, Hart Publishing.
  19. Dwoskin, E., & Tiku, N. (24 March 2020). Facebook Sent Home Thousands of Human Moderators due to the Coronavirus. Now the Algorithms are in Charge. The Washington Post at www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/23/facebook-moderators-coronavirus/
  20. Floridi, L., et al. (2022). CapAI - A Procedure for Conducting Conformity Assessment of AI Systems in Line with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Social Science Research Network.
  21. Gardbaum, S. (2003). The “Horizontal Effect” of Constitutional Rights. 102 Michigan Law Review 388.
  22. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
  23. Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a “Right to Explanation”. AI Magazine 38(3) 50.
  24. Greengard, S. (2022). Can AI Learn to Forget?. https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2022/4/259391-can-ai-learn-to-forget/fulltext
  25. Grozdanovski, L. (2021). In Search of Effectiveness and Fairness in Proving Algorithmic Discrimination in EU Law. 58 Common Market Law Review. At https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/58.1/COLA2021005
  26. Huhn, W.R. (2006). The State Action Doctrine and the Principle of Democratic Choice. 84 Hofstra Law Review 1380.
  27. Kaminski, M.E. (2019). The Right to Explanation, Explained. Berkeley Technology Law
  28. Journal 189, 34(1).
  29. Klonick, K. (2018). The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech’ 131. Harvard Law Review 1599.
  30. Kumm, M. (2006). Who is Afraid of the Total Constitution? Constitutional Rights as Principles and the Constitutionalization of Private Law. German Law Journal 7(4) 341.
  31. Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads. Management science, 65(7), 2966-2981.
  32. Li, T. (2022). Algorithmic Destruction. SMU Law Review, SSRN.
  33. Lynskey, O. (2015). Control over Personal Data in a Digital Age: Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez. 78 Modern Law Review 522.
  34. Malgieri, G. (2019). Automated Decision-making in the EU Member States: The Right to Explanation and Other “Suitable Safeguards” in the National Legislations. Computer Law and Security Review 1, 35(5).
  35. Malgieri, G., & Comandé, G. (2017). Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation. 7 International Data Privacy Law 243.
  36. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
  37. Petkova, B. (2019). Privacy as Europe’s First Amendment. 25 European Law Journal 140.
  38. Pitruzzella, G., & Pollicino, O. (2020). Hate Speech and Disinformation: A European Constitu- tional Perspective. Milan, Bocconi University Press.
  39. Pollicino, O. (2021). Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights on the Internet: A Road Towards Digital Constitutionalism? Bloomsbury Publishing.
  40. Pollicino, O. (2021). Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights on the Internet: A Road Towards Digital Constitutionalism?. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  41. Pollicino, O., & Bassini, M. (2014). Reconciling Right to Be Forgotten and Freedom of Information: Past and Future of Personal Data Protection in Europe. 2 Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 641.
  42. Richards, N.R., & Hartzog, W. (2020). A Duty of Loyalty for Privacy Law. Social Science Research Network. SSRN Scholarly Paper 3642217 at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3642217 accessed 18 May 2022.
  43. Roig, A. (2017). Safeguards for the Right Not to Be Subject to a Decision Based Solely on Automated Processing (Article 22 GDPR)’ 8(3) European Journal of Law and Technology 1.
  44. Romeo, G. (2018). Building Integration Through the Bill of Rights? The European Union at the Mirror. 47 Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 21.
  45. Solove, D.J. (2022). The Limitations of Privacy Rights’. Social Science Research Network. SSRN Scholarly Paper 4024790 at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4024790
  46. Soro, A. (2021). Un Diritto Di Libertà, Riservatezza Treccani.
  47. Tamò, A., & George, D. (2014). Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age. 5 JIPITEC at http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-5-2-2014/3997
  48. Tushnet, M. (2003). The Issue of State Action/Horizontal Effect in Comparative Constitutional Law. 1 International Journal of Constitutional Law 79.
  49. Valcke, P., Sukosd, M., & Picard, R. (Eds.) (2015). Media Pluralism and Diversity: Concepts, Risks and Global Trend. London, Palgrave.
  50. Villaronga, E.F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans Forget, Machines Remember: Artificial Intelligence and the Right to Be Forgotten. 34 Computer Law & Security Review 304..
  51. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B.D., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making does not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. 7 International Data Privacy Law 76.
  52. Warren, S.D., & Brandeis, L. (1890). The Right to Privacy’ (1890) 4, no.5 Harvard Law Review 193.
  53. Werro, F. (2009). The Right to Inform v. The Right to Be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash. Social Science Research Network. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1401357 at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1401357
  54. Zarsky, T. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 118-132.
  55. Zarsky, T.Z. (2017). Incompatible: The GDPR in the Age of Big Data 47 Seton Hall Law Review 995.