Page - 212 - in Intelligent Environments 2019 - Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments
Image of the Page - 212 -
Text of the Page - 212 -
Since the data controllers must present information also about the existence of the
right to be forgotten (RTBF), we further evaluate it to prove our statement regarding the
impracticability of the transparency rule in the frame of the current GDPR rules.
2.2. Withdrawing Consent
Microsoft once stated that computers are very good at remembering things. Absent a
system failure, computers never forget [2]. According to this statement, by asking AI
developers to delete data, as Article 17 of the GDPR orders, the law sets up these systems
for failure. Article 17 of the GDPR defines the conditions of the right to erasure, for
example, in case the data is being processed outside of the scope of initially indicated
purposes. If there is no other legitimate basis available for the data controller to continue
data processing, then data subjects erasure request must be fulfilled.
Why would anyone ever want a system to forget something related to them? Con-
sidering the AI systems, data subjects might not like to consider themselves as part of a
particular group decided on by an algorithm or might not want to disclose the entirety
of their private choices to others. As a result, they might want to remove themselves
from the algorithmic model which evolves dynamically as long as new data is being con-
tributed, fed into it. However, both technically and legally, exercising RTBF is especially
hard in todays data-driven AI systems. RTBF has evolved in its legal perspective in a
way that data subjects may request search engines to hide information related to their
past which is no longer public interest information. It was interpreted as right not to be
found or right not to be seen in different jurisdictions, such as Italy, because being fully
forgotten is technically not possible and promising such a result could mislead the data
subjects as well as the courts [26]. The Italian interpretation as well as the Google v.
Spain [27] rationale, from where GDPRs RTBF originates, in fact, state repetitively that
balancing this right against other fundamental rights such as right to obtain information,
or freedom of expression is based mostly on public interest. If a court believes that a
particular information related to a data subject is in the area of public information, RTBF
cannot be exercised (conditionality).
Practically, the decision to remove or not remove a particular data (from a search
query) is left first up to the data controllers who created the data as part of their business
investment or use the AI system to produce something new. In these cases, most often,
they might find that deleting data is against their intellectual property rights (as propri-
etary information) and business interests. They may refuse to delete such data based on
Article 17 of the GDPR which paves the way for data controllers not to delete, only
remove data from all publicly available sources, because such data might be useful for
future purposes such as law enforcement [28] or developing new business solutions. Re-
moving data from a database (which is technologically more feasible than data erasure)
and data erasure are not the same. In their analysis, Villaronga Kieseberg and Li [29] state
that the current law appears to treat human and machine memory alike but they obviously
are not the same. Ability to forget something is exclusively human (or relevant to any
other biologically existing creatures), but the question whether a robot could actually for-
get something is not a philosophical or biological one but a technical one. Starting from
this point, the above-mentioned paper, proves that it is technically impossible to delete
data from databases since each data added to them is stored in various points throughout
a network of databases (in real life). Logs and backups are inseparable parts of a sys-
G.GultekinVarkonyi /Operability of theGDPR’sConsent Rule in Intelligent
Systems212
Intelligent Environments 2019
Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments
- Title
- Intelligent Environments 2019
- Subtitle
- Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments
- Authors
- Andrés Muñoz
- Sofia Ouhbi
- Wolfgang Minker
- Loubna Echabbi
- Miguel Navarro-CĂa
- Publisher
- IOS Press BV
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- German
- License
- CC BY-NC 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-1-61499-983-6
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 416
- Category
- Tagungsbände