Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Right to Customization: Conceptualizing the Right to Repair for Informational Privacy

verfasst von : Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux, Zaira Zihlmann, Kimberly Garcia, Simon Mayer

Erschienen in: Privacy Technologies and Policy

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Terms of use of a digital service are often framed in a binary way: Either one agrees to the service provider's data processing practices, and is granted access to the service, or one does not, and is denied the service. Many scholars have lamented these ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ situations, as this goes against the ideals of data protection law. To address this inadequacy, computer scientists and legal scholars have tried to come up with approaches to enable more privacy-friendly products and services. In this article, we call for a right to customize the processing of user data. Our arguments build upon technology-driven approaches as well as on the ideals of privacy by design and the now codified data protection by design and default norm within the General Data Protection Regulation. In addition, we draw upon the right to repair that is propagated to empower consumers and enable a more circular economy. We propose two technologically-oriented approaches, termed ‘variants’ and ‘alternatives’ that could enable the technical implementation of a right to customization. We posit that these approaches cannot be demanded without limitation, and that restrictions will depend on how reasonable a customization demand is.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel A Case Study on the Implementation of the Right of Access in Privacy Dashboards
Fußnoten
6
E.g., the service https://​bitsabout.​me/​ in Switzerland.
 
7
E.g., European Parliament report on a longer lifetime for products ((2016/2272(INI)) <https://​www.​europarl.​europa.​eu/​doceo/​document/​A-8-2017-0214_​EN.​html>; European Parliament resolution of 31 May 2018 on the implementation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) (2017/2087(INI)) <https://​www.​europarl.​europa.​eu/​doceo/​document/​TA-8-2018-0241_​EN.​html>; European Parliament, towards a more sustainable single market for business and consumers (2020/2021(INI)) <https://​www.​europarl.​europa.​eu/​doceo/​document/​TA-9-2020-0318_​EN.​pdf>.
 
8
European Commission, Communication from the Commission, The European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final) <https://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​legal-content/​EN/​TXT/​HTML/​?​uri=​CELEX:​52019DC0640&​from=​EN>.
 
9
Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 136, 22.5.2019, p. 28–50.
 
13
Council of the European Union, Draft regulation concerning respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing directive 2002/58/EC (regulation on privacy and electronic communications) – Council mandate<https://​data.​consilium.​europa.​eu/​doc/​document/​ST-6087-2021-INIT/​en/​pdf>.
 
Literatur
1.
Abadi, M., et al.: Deep learning with differential privacy. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 308–318. Association for Computing Machinery (2016)
2.
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., Loewenstein, G.: Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science 347(6221), 509–514 (2015)CrossRef
3.
Agrawal, N., Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Laine, K., Shadbolt, N.: Exploring design and governance challenges in the development of privacy-preserving computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:​2101.​08048 (2021)
4.
5.
6.
Bietti, E.: Consent as a free pass: platform power and the limits of the informational turn. Pace Law Rev. 40, 307–397 (2020)
7.
Bizer, C., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T.: Linked data: the story so far. In: Semantic Services, Interoperability and Web Applications: Emerging Concepts, pp. 205–227. IGI global (2011)
8.
Borgesius, F., Kruikemeier, S., Boerman, S., Helberger, N.: Tracking walls, take-it-or-leave-it choices, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy regulation. Eur. Data Protect. Law Rev. 3, 353–368 (2017)CrossRef
9.
10.
Burkert, H.: Privacy-enhancing technologies: typology, critique, vision. In: Agre, P., Rotenberg, M. (eds.) Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, pp. 126–143. MIT Press, Boston (1997)
11.
12.
Bygrave, L.A.: Hardwiring privacy. In: Brownsword, R., Scotford, E., Yeung, K. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation, and Technology, pp. 754–775. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017)
13.
Bygrave, L.A.: Privacy-enhancing technologies: caught between a rock and a hard place. Priv. Law Policy Rep. 9, 135–137 (2002)
14.
Bygrave, L.A.: Article 25 data protection by design and by default. In: Kuner, C., Bygrave, L.A., Dockyes, C. (eds.) The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, pp. 571–581. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2020)
15.
Carolan, E.: The continuing problems with online consent under the EU’s emerging data protection principles. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 32(3), 462–473 (2016)CrossRef
16.
17.
Choi, H., Park, J., Jung, Y.: The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 81, 42–51 (2018)CrossRef
18.
Clifford, D., Graef, I., Valcke, P.: Pre-formulated declarations of data subject consent: citizen-consumer empowerment and the alignment of data, consumer and competition law protections. German Law J. 20(5), 679–721 (2019)CrossRef
19.
Custers, B., Dechesne, F., Pieters, W., Schermer, B., van der Hof, S.: Consent and privacy. In: Müller, A., Schaber, P. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent, pp. 247–258. Routledge, London (2018)CrossRef
20.
Custers, B.: Click here to consent forever: Expiry dates for informed consent. Big Data Soc. 3(1), 1–6 (2016)CrossRef
21.
22.
23.
De Hert, P., Papakonstantinou, V.: The new general data protection regulation: still a sound system for the protection of individuals? Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 32(2), 179–194 (2016)CrossRef
24.
De Hert, P., Papakonstantinou, V., Malgieri, G., Beslay, L., Sanchez, I.: The right to data portability in the GDPR: towards user-centric interoperability of digital services. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 34(2), 193–203 (2018)CrossRef
25.
De Montjoye, Y.A., Shmueli, E., Wang, S.S., Pentland, A.S.: OpenPDS: protecting the privacy of metadata through safeanswers. PloS One 9(7), e98790 (2014)CrossRef
26.
De Oliveira Rodrigues, C.M., de Freitas, F.L.G., Spósito Barreiros, E.F., de Azevedo, R.R., de Almeida Filho, A.T.: Legal ontologies over time: a systematic mapping study. Expert Syst. Appl. 130, 12–30 (2019)
27.
Diker Vanberg, A.: The right to data portability in the GDPR: what lessons can be learned from the EU experience? J. Internet Law 21, 11–19 (2018)
28.
Edenberg, E., Jones, M.L.: Analyzing the legal roots and moral core of digital consent. New Media Soc. 21, 1804–1823 (2019)CrossRef
29.
Efroni, Z., Metzger, J., Mischau, L., Schirmbeck, M.: Privacy icons: a risk-based approach to visualisation of data processing. Eur. Data Protect. Law Rev. 5(3), 352–366 (2019)CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Gray, C., Santos, C., Bielova, N., Toth, M., Clifford, D.: Dark patterns and the legal requirements of consent banners: an interaction criticism perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:​2009.​10194 (2020)
36.
Grinvald, L.C., Tur-Sinai, O.: Intellectual property law and the right to repair. Fordham Law Rev. 88(1), 64–128 (2019)
37.
38.
Hartzog, W.: Privacy’s Blueprint the Battle to Control the Design of New Technologies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2018)CrossRef
39.
40.
Hernandez, R., Miranda, C., Goñi, J.: Empowering sustainable consumption by giving back to consumers the ‘right to repair’. Sustainability 12(3), 850 (2020)CrossRef
41.
Janal, R.: Data portability - a tale of two concepts. JIPITEC 8, 59–69 (2017)
42.
Jasmontaite, L., Kamara, I., Zanfir-Fortuna, G., Leucci, S.: Data protection by design and by default: framing guiding principles into legal obligations in the GDPR. Eur. Data Protect. Law Rev. 4, 168–189 (2018)CrossRef
43.
Johnston, S.F.: The technological fix as social cure-all: origins and implications. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 37, 47–54 (2018)CrossRef
44.
Kokolakis, S.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 64, 122–134 (2017)CrossRef
45.
Koops, B.-J.: The trouble with european data protection law. Int. Data Priv. Law 4(4), 250–261 (2014)CrossRef
46.
Koops, B.-J., Leenes, R.: Privacy regulation cannot be hardcoded. A critical comment on the ‘privacy by design’ provision in data-protection law. Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol. 28, 159–171 (2014)CrossRef
47.
Kosta, E.: Consent in European Data Protection Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden (2013)CrossRef
48.
Kostova, B., Gürses, S., Troncoso, C.: Privacy engineering meets software engineering. On the challenges of engineering privacy by design. arXiv preprint arXiv:​2007.​08613 (2020).
49.
Kotschy, W.: Article 6 lawfulness of processing. In: Kuner, C., Bygrave, L.A., Dockyes, C. (eds.) The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, pp. 321–344. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2020)
50.
Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C.P., Ranzini, G.: Data capitalism and the user: an exploration of privacy cynicism in Germany. New Media Soc. 22(7), 1168–1187 (2020)CrossRef
51.
Mathur, A., et al.: Dark patterns at scale. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 1–32. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1907.​07032 (2019)
52.
McDonald, A.M., Cranor, L.F.: The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S J. Law Policy Inf. Soc. 4, 540–565 (2008)
53.
Montello, S.: The right to repair and the corporate stranglehold over the consumer: profits over people. Tulane J. Technol. Intellect. Prop. 22, 165–184 (2020)
54.
55.
Mourey, J.A., Waldman, A.E.: Past the privacy paradox: the importance of privacy changes as a function of control and complexity. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 5(2), 162–180 (2020)CrossRef
56.
Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Affairs 41, 100–126 (2007)CrossRef
57.
58.
Nouwens, M., Liccardi, I., Veale, M., Karger, D., Kagal, L.: Dark patterns after the GDPR: scraping consent pop-ups and demonstrating their influence. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–13. arXiv preprint arXiv:​2001.​02479 (2020)
59.
60.
61.
62.
Rubinstein, I., Good, N.: The trouble with Article 25 (and how to fix it): the future of data protection by design and default. Int. Data Priv. Law 10(1), 37–56 (2020)CrossRef
63.
64.
Sambra, A.V., et al.: Solid: a platform for decentralized social applications based on linked data. MIT CSAIL & Qatar Computing Research Institute, Techical report (2016).
65.
Schartum, D.: Making privacy by design operative. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 24, 151–175 (2016)CrossRef
66.
Schaub, F., Balebako, R., Durity, A., Cranor, L.: A Design space for effective privacy notices. In: Selinger, E., Polonetsky, J., Tene, O. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy, pp. 365–393. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2018)CrossRef
67.
68.
Schiffner, S., et al.: Towards a roadmap for privacy technologies and the general data protection regulation: a transatlantic initiative. In: Medina, M., Mitrakas, A., Rannenberg, K., Schweighofer, E., Tsouroulas, N. (eds.) APF. LNCS, vol. 11079, pp. 24–42. Springer, Cham (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-030-02547-2_​2CrossRef
69.
70.
Solove, D.J.: Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harv. Law Rev. 126, 1880–1903 (2013)
71.
Solove, D.J.: The Myth of the Privacy Paradox. George Washington Law Rev. 89, 1–42 (2021)
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
The Royal Society: Protecting privacy in practice: the current use, development and limits of privacy enhancing technologies in data analysis. Technical report. The Royal Society (2019)
77.
Utz, C., Degeling, M., Fahl, S., Schaub, F., Holz, T.: (Un)informed consent: studying GDPR consent notices in the field. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2019), pp. 973–990 (2019)
78.
Vanberg, A., Ünver, M.: The right to data portability in the GDPR and EU competition law: odd couple or dynamic duo? Eur. J. Law Technol. 8(1), 1–22 (2017)
79.
Van Hoboken, J.V.J.: Privacy disconnect. In: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, pp. 255–284. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2019)
80.
Veltri, G.A., Ivchenko, A.: The impact of different forms of cognitive scarcity on online privacy disclosure. Comput. Hum. Behav. 73, 238–246 (2017)CrossRef
81.
Waldman, A.E.: Cognitive biases, dark patterns, and the ‘privacy paradox.’ Curr. Opin. Psychol. 31, 105–109 (2020)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Right to Customization: Conceptualizing the Right to Repair for Informational Privacy
verfasst von
Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux
Zaira Zihlmann
Kimberly Garcia
Simon Mayer
Copyright-Jahr
2021
Buch
Privacy Technologies and Policy

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-76662-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-76663-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76663-4_1

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise