Abstract
AbstractThe Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons regarding the processing of personal data (GDPR) is one of the key fundamental pieces of European legislation to protect human rights and freedoms. However, the development of AI systems that are capable of collecting and processing large amounts of data and predicting user habits and emotional states has affected traditional legal categories and tested their resilience. This paper assesses the limits of the current formulation of the GDPR which does not take expressly into account the category of inferred data as a special category of data. Furthermore, it questions whether the toolbox put in place by the GDPR is still effective in protecting data subjects from practices such as neuromarketing and eye-tracking systems. It shows that it is certainly the essential starting point, but that, on the other hand, cannot be spared criticism. For this, in the recent years, the European legislator has adopted further legislations including, in particular, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). Although representing a step forward in protection against such technologies, they each have critical aspects that need to be considered.
Funder
Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Reference82 articles.
1. Abbas, S. N., & Abo-Zahhad, M. (2017). Eye blinking EOG signals as biometrics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47301-7_5
2. Alì, G. S., & Yu, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence between transparency and secrecy: From the EC whitepaper to the AIA and beyond. European Journal of Law and Technology, 12, 3. https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/754 (accessed 13 November 2023).
3. Alterman, A. (2003). ‘A piece of yourself’: Ethical issues in biometric identification. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ETIN.0000006918.22060.1f
4. Arolt, V., Lencer, R., Müller-Myhsok, B., Purmann, S., Schürmann, M., Leutelt, J., Pinnow, M., & Schwinger, E. (1996). Eye tracking dysfunction is a putative phenotypic susceptibility marker of schizophrenia and maps to a locus on chromosome 6p in families with multiple occurrence of the disease. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 67, 564–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19961122)67:6%3c564::AID-AJMG10%3e3.0.CO;2-R
5. Arthmann, C., & Li, I. P. (2017). Neuromarketing-The art and science of marketing and neurosciences enabled by IoT technologies. IIC Journal of Innovation, 1–10. https://www.iiconsortium.org/pdf/2017_JoI_Neuromarketing_IoT_Technologies.pdf (accessed 15 November 2023).