Resources
- Identity Use Cases & Scenarios.
- FIDIS Deliverables.
- Identity of Identity.
- Interoperability.
- Profiling.
- D7.2: Descriptive analysis and inventory of profiling practices.
- D7.3: Report on Actual and Possible Profiling Techniques in the Field of Ambient Intelligence.
- D7.4: Implications of profiling practices on democracy.
- D7.6 Workshop on AmI, Profiling and RFID.
- D7.7: RFID, Profiling, and AmI.
- D7.8: Workshop on Ambient Law.
- D7.9: A Vision of Ambient Law.
- D7.10: Multidisciplinary literature selection, with Wiki discussion forum on Profiling, AmI, RFID, Biometrics and Identity.
- D7.11: Kick-off Workshop on biometric behavioural profiling and Transparency Enhancing Technologies.
- Forensic Implications.
- HighTechID.
- Privacy and legal-social content.
- Mobility and Identity.
- Other.
- IDIS Journal.
- FIDIS Interactive.
- Press & Events.
- In-House Journal.
- Booklets
- Identity in a Networked World.
- Identity R/Evolution.
D7.4: Implications of profiling practices on democracy
Reply Angelos Yannopoulos:
Introductory remarks – perspective of this reply
This reply is written from a mixed perspective. The background of the author is in engineering, but the two main papers in this deliverable come from the area of legal philosophy and legal theory, which makes a purely engineering reply nonsensical. Thus, this author will at times “philosophise about legal theory”, without claiming to actually contribute expert legal philosophy. Rather, this text is just a “thinking man’s” response to the stimulating discussion of the document’s first two papers. As it happens, though, this specific (hopefully) “thinking man” has a technical background in the technological area whose legal and social implications are the topic of this deliverable. Two weaknesses of this text must be stressed up front: first, this author’s background does not allow him to always use well-tuned legal terminology, nor make references to other work, research and theory from the main area of this deliverable’s scope; secondly, the first part of this reply aims to ring a warning bell by highlighting an important problem that has been glossed over by the main papers of this document – as a result, this text plays the role of devil’s advocate and therefore makes no effort to be optimistic or politically correct.
Denis Royer | 28 / 45 |