Mireille Hildebrandt presented at HEC Paris (École des hautes études commerciales de Paris), at the Conference on Legal DATA Mining, Machine Learning and Visualisation, Legal Protection Against Automation of Law, the slides are here.
On December 18, Mireille Hildebrandt will introduce the audience of the ICAL ‘23 Conference in Geneva to a topic she will also extensively expand on in her upcoming monograph, ‘A new Hermeneutics for Computational Law’.
... »Daniel J. Solove, Professor of Intellectual Property and Technology Law at the George Washington University Law School - and one of the global thought leaders on privacy matters - and Hideyuki Matsumi, a doctoral researcher of the Law, Science, Technology and Society Research Group at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (LSTS), have co-authored the paper ‘The Prediction Society: Algorithms and the Problems of Forecasting the Future’.
In their paper they state that algorithmic predictions are types of inferences that current privacy and data protection laws fail to adequately address. They argue that the use of algorithmic predictions is a distinct issue warranting different treatment from other types of inference and they further examine the issues laws must consider when addressing the problems of algorithmic predictions.
On 22 September Professor Hildebrandt presented her reply to the keynote of Professor Nadya Purtova, during the international Beyond Data Protection Conference at Utrecht University (based on Purtova’s ERC project). Hildebrandt discussed the need to steer free from the harm-approach to fundamental rights impact assessments, reminding the audience that the Court of Justice of the European Union takes a violation-approach. To establish a violation we need not prove harm. Fundamental rights are part of international constitutional law, and the approach to assessing potential impact should not be framed on e.g. tort law (where harm caused is a condition) or on utilitarian ideology (based on the harm-principle and cost-benefit analyses). Whereas Anglo-American legal theory is ‘marinated’ in a utilitarian approach, European legal theory takes the violation of rights seriously as an independent criterion for fundamental rights impact assessments. Hildebrandt also recalled the fact that the GDPR protects not only data subjects, but - as stipulated in art. 1, 24, 25, 32 and 35 - requires that controllers foresee potential impact for natural persons.
... »Hildebrandt and Meessen gave a keynote and a talk during the FALL DAYS of the Institute for Programming research and Algorithmics (IPA) in the Netherlands. The focus will be on sustainable software for data- en code-driven systems, highlighting the impact of upstream design decisions that have normative effects on downstream deployment and end-users.
... »
Discussion