Search

Algorithmic decision-making and similar types of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to improvements in all sectors of society but can also have discriminatory effects. While current non-discrimination law offers people some protection, algorithmic decision-making presents the lawmakers and law enforcement with several challenges. For instance, algorithms can generate new categories of people based on seemingly innocuous characteristics, such as web browser preference or apartment number, or more complicated categories combining many data points. Such new types of differentiation could evade non-discrimination law, as browser type and house number are not protected characteristics, but such differentiation could still be unfair, for instance if it reinforces social inequality. This paper attempts to determine which system of non-discrimination law would best be applied to algorithmic decision-making, considering that algorithms can differentiate on the basis of characteristics that do not correlate with protected grounds of discrimination such as ethnicity or gender. The paper analyses the current loopholes in the protection offered by non-discrimination law and explores the best way for lawmakers to approach the issue of algorithmic differentiation. While we focus on Europe, this paper’s concentration on concept and theory rather than specific application, should prove useful for scholars and policymakers from other regions as they encounter similar problems with algorithmic decision-making.

In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides comprehensive rules for the processing of personal data. In addition, the EU lawmaker intends to adopt specific rules to protect confidentiality of communications, in a separate ePrivacy Regulation. Some have argued that there is no need for such additional rules for communications confidentiality. This Article discusses the protection of the right to confidentiality of communications in Europe. We look at the right’s origins to assess the rationale for protecting it. We also analyze how the right is currently protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and under EU law. We show that at its core the right to communications confidentiality protects three individual and collective values: privacy, freedom of expression, and trust in communication services. The right aims to ensure that individuals and organizations can safely entrust communication to service providers. Initially, the right protected only postal letters, but it has gradually developed into a strong safeguard for the protection of confidentiality of communications, regardless of the technology used. Hence, the right does not merely serve individual privacy interests, but also other more collective interests that are crucial for the functioning of our information society. We conclude that separate EU rules to protect communications confidentiality, next to the GDPR, are justified and necessary.

Since the Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Europeans have, under certain conditions, the right to have search results for their name delisted. This paper examines how the Google Spain judgment has been applied in the Netherlands. Since the Google Spain judgment, Dutch courts have decided on two cases regarding delisting requests. In both cases, the Dutch courts considered freedom of expression aspects of delisting more thoroughly than the Court of Justice. However, the effect of the Google Spain judgment on freedom of expression is difficult to assess, as search engine operators decide about most delisting requests without disclosing much about their decisions.