A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation

A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation external link

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022

Abstract

This article provides an overview and critical examination of the rules for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller under the General Data Protection Regulation. Using Google Assistant – an artificial intelligence-driven virtual assistant – as a case study, we argue that these rules are overreaching and difficult to apply in the present-day information society and Internet of Things environments. First, as a consequence of recent developments in case law and supervisory guidance, these rules lead to a complex and ambiguous test to determine (joint) control. Second, due to advances in technological applications and business models, it is increasingly challenging to apply such rules to contemporary processing operations. In particular, as illustrated by the Google Assistant, individuals will likely be qualified as joint controllers, together with Google and also third-party developers, for at least the collection and possible transmission of other individuals’ personal data via the virtual assistant. Third, we identify follow-on issues relating to the apportionment of responsibilities between joint controllers and the effective and complete protection of data subjects. We conclude by questioning whether the framework for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller is future-proof and normatively desirable.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105689

frontpage, GDPR, Privacy, Recht op gegevensbescherming

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Mil, J. van
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 0616
DA  - 2022-06-16
T1  - A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 45
DO  - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105689
AB  - This article provides an overview and critical examination of the rules for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller under the General Data Protection Regulation. Using Google Assistant – an artificial intelligence-driven virtual assistant – as a case study, we argue that these rules are overreaching and difficult to apply in the present-day information society and Internet of Things environments. First, as a consequence of recent developments in case law and supervisory guidance, these rules lead to a complex and ambiguous test to determine (joint) control. Second, due to advances in technological applications and business models, it is increasingly challenging to apply such rules to contemporary processing operations. In particular, as illustrated by the Google Assistant, individuals will likely be qualified as joint controllers, together with Google and also third-party developers, for at least the collection and possible transmission of other individuals’ personal data via the virtual assistant. Third, we identify follow-on issues relating to the apportionment of responsibilities between joint controllers and the effective and complete protection of data subjects. We conclude by questioning whether the framework for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller is future-proof and normatively desirable.
K1  - frontpage
K1  - GDPR
K1  - Privacy
K1  - Recht op gegevensbescherming
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation},
	author = {Mil, J. van and Quintais, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105689},
	year = {0616},
	date = {2022-06-16},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {45},
	abstract = {This article provides an overview and critical examination of the rules for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller under the General Data Protection Regulation. Using Google Assistant – an artificial intelligence-driven virtual assistant – as a case study, we argue that these rules are overreaching and difficult to apply in the present-day information society and Internet of Things environments. First, as a consequence of recent developments in case law and supervisory guidance, these rules lead to a complex and ambiguous test to determine (joint) control. Second, due to advances in technological applications and business models, it is increasingly challenging to apply such rules to contemporary processing operations. In particular, as illustrated by the Google Assistant, individuals will likely be qualified as joint controllers, together with Google and also third-party developers, for at least the collection and possible transmission of other individuals’ personal data via the virtual assistant. Third, we identify follow-on issues relating to the apportionment of responsibilities between joint controllers and the effective and complete protection of data subjects. We conclude by questioning whether the framework for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller is future-proof and normatively desirable.},
	keywords = {frontpage, GDPR, Privacy, Recht op gegevensbescherming},
}

Save .bib

Inbreng Rondetafelgesprek over de Wet kansspelen op afstand external link

Poort, J.

2022

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/inbreng-rondetafel_kansspelen_9juni2022/ https://debatgemist.tweedekamer.nl/debatten/wet-kansspelen-op-afstand

frontpage, kansspelen

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II external link

Margoni, T., Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022

Links

http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/09/algorithmic-propagation-do-property-rights-in-data-increase-bias-in-content-moderation-part-ii/

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Artificial intelligence, Auteursrecht, frontpage

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I external link

Margoni, T., Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022

Links

http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/08/algorithmic-propagation-do-property-rights-in-data-increase-bias-in-content-moderation-part-i/

algoritmes, Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Artificial intelligence, Auteursrecht, Europees recht, frontpage

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 12 december 2021 (SENA/Organisatoren Dance Events) external link

Poort, J.

Auteursrecht, iss. : 2, num: 4, pp: 107-109, 2022

Abstract

De zaak draait om de hoogte van de billijke vergoeding voor openbaarmaking van commerciële fonogrammen tijdens dance-evenementen. De Hoge Raad bekrachtigt het arrest van het gerechtshof Den Haag, dat tot uitgangspunt had genomen dat tussen de ‘ticketprijs’ en de ‘prijs per bezoeker’ geen recht evenredig verband bestaat.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_auteursrecht_2022_2/

Annotaties, Auteursrecht, billijke vergoeding, frontpage, muziek, openbaarmaking

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

De playlists van Spotify: Hoe ver reikt het nabuurrechtelijke vergoedingsrecht met betrekking tot audiostreamingdiensten? external link

Hugenholtz, P.B.

Auteursrecht, iss. : 2, pp: 75-84, 2022

Abstract

Op grond van art. 7 lid 1 WNR vallen onder het vergoedingsrecht voor ‘secundair gebruik’ alle mogelijke vormen van openbaarmaking van commercieel uitgebrachte fonogrammen, doch niet het online beschikbaar stellen. Algemeen wordt aangenomen dat het vergoedingsrecht niet geldt voor het streamen via Spotify en dergelijke diensten. Maar geldt dat ook voor de door Spotify aangeboden playlists en vergelijkbare omroepachtige diensten? In dit artikel wordt een poging gedaan criteria te formuleren aan de hand waarvan het ‘beschikbaar stellen’ van andere vormen van openbaarmaking kan worden onderscheiden.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/auteursrecht_2022_2/

Auteursrecht, frontpage, muziek, Naburige rechten, streamingdiensten

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Naar een algemeen transparantiebeginsel? : Bespreking van het preadvies van A.W.G.J. Buijze voor de VAR 2022 external link

Dommering, E.

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Bestuursrecht, iss. : 5, num: 141, pp: 265-271, 2022

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/ntb_2022_5_141/

frontpage, openbaarheid, Overheidsinformatie, Privacy, transparantie

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Meaning of “Additional” in the Poland ruling of the Court of Justice: Double Safeguards – Ex Ante Flagging and Ex Post Complaint Systems – are Indispensable external link

Senftleben, M.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022

Links

http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/01/the-meaning-of-additional-in-the-poland-ruling-of-the-court-of-justice-double-safeguards-ex-ante-flagging-and-ex-post-complaint-systems-are-indispensable/

Auteursrecht, frontpage

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector external link

Bodó, B. & Janssen, H.

Policy and Society, 2022

Abstract

Emerging technologies permeate and potentially disrupt a wide spectrum of our social, economic, and political relations. Various state institutions, including education, law enforcement, and healthcare, increasingly rely on technical components, such as automated decision-making systems, e-government systems, and other digital tools to provide cheap, efficient public services, and supposedly fair, transparent, disinterested, and accountable public administration. The increased interest in various blockchain-based solutions from central bank digital currencies, via tokenized educational credentials, and distributed ledger-based land registries to self-sovereign identities is the latest, still mostly unwritten chapter in a long history of standardized, objectified, automated, technocratic, and technologized public administration. The rapid, (often) unplanned, and uncontrolled technologization of public services (as happened in the hasty adoption of distance-learning and teleconferencing systems during Corona Virus Disease (COVID) lockdowns) raises complex questions about the use of novel technological components, which may or may not be ultimately adequate for the task for which they are used. The question whether we can trust the technical infrastructures the public sector uses when providing public services is a central concern in an age where trust in government is declining: If the government’s artificial intelligence system that detects welfare fraud fails, the public’s confidence in the government is ultimately hit. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of how the use of potentially untrustworthy (private) technological systems including blockchain-based systems in the public sector may affect trust in government. We then propose several policy options to protect the trust in government even if some of their technological components prove fundamentally untrustworthy.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac019

blockchain, frontpage, Technologie en recht, trust

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bodó, B.
AU  - Janssen, H.
PY  - 0519
DA  - 2022-05-19
T1  - Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector
JO  - Policy and Society
DO  - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac019
AB  - Emerging technologies permeate and potentially disrupt a wide spectrum of our social, economic, and political relations. Various state institutions, including education, law enforcement, and healthcare, increasingly rely on technical components, such as automated decision-making systems, e-government systems, and other digital tools to provide cheap, efficient public services, and supposedly fair, transparent, disinterested, and accountable public administration. The increased interest in various blockchain-based solutions from central bank digital currencies, via tokenized educational credentials, and distributed ledger-based land registries to self-sovereign identities is the latest, still mostly unwritten chapter in a long history of standardized, objectified, automated, technocratic, and technologized public administration. The rapid, (often) unplanned, and uncontrolled technologization of public services (as happened in the hasty adoption of distance-learning and teleconferencing systems during Corona Virus Disease (COVID) lockdowns) raises complex questions about the use of novel technological components, which may or may not be ultimately adequate for the task for which they are used. The question whether we can trust the technical infrastructures the public sector uses when providing public services is a central concern in an age where trust in government is declining: If the government’s artificial intelligence system that detects welfare fraud fails, the public’s confidence in the government is ultimately hit. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of how the use of potentially untrustworthy (private) technological systems including blockchain-based systems in the public sector may affect trust in government. We then propose several policy options to protect the trust in government even if some of their technological components prove fundamentally untrustworthy.
K1  - blockchain
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Technologie en recht
K1  - trust
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector},
	author = {Bodó, B. and Janssen, H.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac019},
	year = {0519},
	date = {2022-05-19},
	journal = {Policy and Society},
	abstract = {Emerging technologies permeate and potentially disrupt a wide spectrum of our social, economic, and political relations. Various state institutions, including education, law enforcement, and healthcare, increasingly rely on technical components, such as automated decision-making systems, e-government systems, and other digital tools to provide cheap, efficient public services, and supposedly fair, transparent, disinterested, and accountable public administration. The increased interest in various blockchain-based solutions from central bank digital currencies, via tokenized educational credentials, and distributed ledger-based land registries to self-sovereign identities is the latest, still mostly unwritten chapter in a long history of standardized, objectified, automated, technocratic, and technologized public administration. The rapid, (often) unplanned, and uncontrolled technologization of public services (as happened in the hasty adoption of distance-learning and teleconferencing systems during Corona Virus Disease (COVID) lockdowns) raises complex questions about the use of novel technological components, which may or may not be ultimately adequate for the task for which they are used. The question whether we can trust the technical infrastructures the public sector uses when providing public services is a central concern in an age where trust in government is declining: If the government’s artificial intelligence system that detects welfare fraud fails, the public’s confidence in the government is ultimately hit. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of how the use of potentially untrustworthy (private) technological systems including blockchain-based systems in the public sector may affect trust in government. We then propose several policy options to protect the trust in government even if some of their technological components prove fundamentally untrustworthy.},
	keywords = {blockchain, frontpage, Technologie en recht, trust},
}

Save .bib

The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda external link

Ferrari, V.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022

Abstract

This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy. One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.

Links

digital platforms, frontpage, Platforms, Technologie en recht

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ferrari, V.
PY  - 0519
DA  - 2022-05-19
T1  - The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda
JO  -  Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 45
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/computerlawsecurityreview_2022/
DO  - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105687
AB  - This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy.

One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.
K1  - digital platforms
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Platforms
K1  - Technologie en recht
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda},
	author = {Ferrari, V.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105687},
	year = {0519},
	date = {2022-05-19},
	journal = { Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {45},
	abstract = {This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy.

One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.},
	keywords = {digital platforms, frontpage, Platforms, Technologie en recht},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex