Why the generative AI models do not like the right to be forgotten: a study of proportionality of identified limitations

Author:

Anna Popowicz-Pazdej AnnaORCID

Abstract

The article explores the limitation of one of the privacy and data protection rights when using generative AI models. The identified limitation is assessed from the perspective of the ‘essence’ of the right to the protection of personal data. With the further aim of assessing the limitation, the author explores whether the right to be forgotten (RTBF) is relevant or effective in an AI/machine learning context. These considerations are focused on the technical problems encountered when applying the strict interpretation of the RTBF. In particular, the antagonism between, on the one hand, the values of privacy and data protection rights, and on the other, the technical capabilities of the producer of the generative AI models, is further analysed in this context. As the conclusion emphasizes that the RTBF cannot be practicably or effectively exercised in the machine learning models, further considerations of this exposed limitation are presented. The proportionality principle, as an instrument that supports the proper application if there is any limitation of the conflicting rights, has been utilized to depict the qualitative approach. The integration of this principle supports the conclusion by identifying a more efficient way to address some regulatory issues. Hence, the conclusion of the article presents some suggested solutions as to the interpretation of this right in the light of this new technological advancement. Ultimately, the paper aims to address the legal conundrum of how to balance the conflict between the interest of innovative use of the data (the data producer’s right) and privacy and data protection rights.

Publisher

Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan

Reference23 articles.

1. Alexy, Robert. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford, New York, 2002.

2. Alexy, Robert. “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality.” Ratio Juris 16, no. 2. 2003: 131–140.

3. Ambrose, Meg Leta. “It’s About Time: Privacy, Information Life Cycles, and the Right to Be Forgotten.” Stanford Technology Law Review 16, no. 2. 2013: 369–422.

4. Ambrose, Meg Leta, and Jef Ausloos. “The Right To Be Forgotten Across the Pond.” Journal Of Information Policy 3. 2013: 1–23.

5. Christoph, Bieber. “Datenschutz als politisches Thema – von der Volkszählung zur Piratenpartei.” In Datenschutz. Grundlagen, Entwicklungen und Kontroversen [Data privacy: Fundamentals, developments, controversies], edited by Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, and Thilo Weichert. Bonn, 2012: 34–44.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3