评估对基本权利的(严重)影响

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Gianclaudio Malgieri , Cristiana Santos
{"title":"评估对基本权利的(严重)影响","authors":"Gianclaudio Malgieri ,&nbsp;Cristiana Santos","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>\"Risk to fundamental rights,\", \"impact on fundamental rights\", \"harm to fundamental rights\" and \"non-material damages\" are all terms referring to similar problems, though inherently ambiguous and very problematic, especially in the age of AI-based technologies and digital platforms. Traditionally, legal and social sciences have two different approaches to analysing the impacts on fundamental rights: the rights-based approach and the risk of harm-based approach to fundamental rights. The rights-based approach is binary, focusing on whether rights and obligations are respected or violated. In contrast, a harm-based approach focuses on the anticipation of undesired events and measuring their likelihood and severity. However, focusing solely on \"harms'' or \"damages'' is reductionist, while existing impact assessment models often use vague terms like \"gravity\", \"intensity,\" and \"magnitude\", which do not effectively help measure interferences with fundamental rights. Without operational criteria to measure these risks, most EU digital strategies demanding impact and risk assessments fail. Examples include the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in the GDPR, Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIA) in the AI Act, and systemic risk assessments in the Digital Services Act (DSA). We posit that interferences with fundamental rights are seen as a spectrum that ranges from social contacts to violations, and these interferences can and should be measured. Thus, this article proposes a rights-based approach, combining it with elements from the harm approach and proposes an actionable parameter-based framework (also based on social meaning theories and social perception methodologies) to assess impacts on fundamental rights. The proposed multi-metric approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of the <em>severity</em> of impacts on fundamental rights within EU law, particularly in GDPR, DSA, and AI Act. This approach aims to inform policymaking, prioritise high-risk scenarios and propose mitigation measures in digital markets. This is especially important for detecting and addressing human vulnerabilities in interactions with digital technologies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"56 ","pages":"Article 106113"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the (severity of) impacts on fundamental rights\",\"authors\":\"Gianclaudio Malgieri ,&nbsp;Cristiana Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>\\\"Risk to fundamental rights,\\\", \\\"impact on fundamental rights\\\", \\\"harm to fundamental rights\\\" and \\\"non-material damages\\\" are all terms referring to similar problems, though inherently ambiguous and very problematic, especially in the age of AI-based technologies and digital platforms. Traditionally, legal and social sciences have two different approaches to analysing the impacts on fundamental rights: the rights-based approach and the risk of harm-based approach to fundamental rights. The rights-based approach is binary, focusing on whether rights and obligations are respected or violated. In contrast, a harm-based approach focuses on the anticipation of undesired events and measuring their likelihood and severity. However, focusing solely on \\\"harms'' or \\\"damages'' is reductionist, while existing impact assessment models often use vague terms like \\\"gravity\\\", \\\"intensity,\\\" and \\\"magnitude\\\", which do not effectively help measure interferences with fundamental rights. Without operational criteria to measure these risks, most EU digital strategies demanding impact and risk assessments fail. Examples include the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in the GDPR, Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIA) in the AI Act, and systemic risk assessments in the Digital Services Act (DSA). We posit that interferences with fundamental rights are seen as a spectrum that ranges from social contacts to violations, and these interferences can and should be measured. Thus, this article proposes a rights-based approach, combining it with elements from the harm approach and proposes an actionable parameter-based framework (also based on social meaning theories and social perception methodologies) to assess impacts on fundamental rights. The proposed multi-metric approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of the <em>severity</em> of impacts on fundamental rights within EU law, particularly in GDPR, DSA, and AI Act. This approach aims to inform policymaking, prioritise high-risk scenarios and propose mitigation measures in digital markets. This is especially important for detecting and addressing human vulnerabilities in interactions with digital technologies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":\"56 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364925000081\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364925000081","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the (severity of) impacts on fundamental rights
"Risk to fundamental rights,", "impact on fundamental rights", "harm to fundamental rights" and "non-material damages" are all terms referring to similar problems, though inherently ambiguous and very problematic, especially in the age of AI-based technologies and digital platforms. Traditionally, legal and social sciences have two different approaches to analysing the impacts on fundamental rights: the rights-based approach and the risk of harm-based approach to fundamental rights. The rights-based approach is binary, focusing on whether rights and obligations are respected or violated. In contrast, a harm-based approach focuses on the anticipation of undesired events and measuring their likelihood and severity. However, focusing solely on "harms'' or "damages'' is reductionist, while existing impact assessment models often use vague terms like "gravity", "intensity," and "magnitude", which do not effectively help measure interferences with fundamental rights. Without operational criteria to measure these risks, most EU digital strategies demanding impact and risk assessments fail. Examples include the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in the GDPR, Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIA) in the AI Act, and systemic risk assessments in the Digital Services Act (DSA). We posit that interferences with fundamental rights are seen as a spectrum that ranges from social contacts to violations, and these interferences can and should be measured. Thus, this article proposes a rights-based approach, combining it with elements from the harm approach and proposes an actionable parameter-based framework (also based on social meaning theories and social perception methodologies) to assess impacts on fundamental rights. The proposed multi-metric approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of the severity of impacts on fundamental rights within EU law, particularly in GDPR, DSA, and AI Act. This approach aims to inform policymaking, prioritise high-risk scenarios and propose mitigation measures in digital markets. This is especially important for detecting and addressing human vulnerabilities in interactions with digital technologies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信