PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

Using sensitive data to prevent discrimination by artificial intelligence: Does the GDPR need a new exception?

Posted on November 28, 2022June 24, 2025 by Dissent

There’s a new paper by Marvinvan Bekkum and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius:
Using sensitive data to prevent discrimination by artificial intelligence: Does the GDPR need a new exception?

Abstract

Organisations can use artificial intelligence to make decisions about people for a variety of reasons, for instance, to select the best candidates from many job applications. However, AI systems can have discriminatory effects when used for decision-making. To illustrate, an AI system could reject applications of people with a certain ethnicity, while the organisation did not plan such ethnicity discrimination. But in Europe, an organisation runs into a problem when it wants to assess whether its AI system accidentally discriminates based on ethnicity: the organisation may not know the applicants’ ethnicity. In principle, the GDPR bans the use of certain ‘special categories of data’ (sometimes called ‘sensitive data’), which include data on ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference. The proposal for an AI Act of the European Commission includes a provision that would enable organisations to use special categories of data for auditing their AI systems. This paper asks whether the GDPR’s rules on special categories of personal data hinder the prevention of AI-driven discrimination. We argue that the GDPR does prohibit such use of special category data in many circumstances. We also map out the arguments for and against creating an exception to the GDPR’s ban on using special categories of personal data, to enable preventing discrimination by AI systems. The paper discusses European law, but the paper can be relevant outside Europe too, as many policymakers in the world grapple with the tension between privacy and non-discrimination policy.

Access the full paper at ScienceDirect or download the pdf (free).

No related posts.

Category: Artificial IntelligenceLawsNon-U.S.

Post navigation

← WI: Former student sues Middleton-Cross Plains district for defamation, privacy violation
A Peek Inside the FBI’s Unprecedented January 6 Geofence Dragnet →

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: info@pogowasright.org

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Microsoft’s controversial Recall feature is now blocked by Brave and AdGuard
  • Trump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive Orders
  • Indonesia asked to reassess data privacy terms in new U.S. trade deal
  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure
  • Idaho agrees not to prosecute doctors for out-of-state abortion referrals

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • BreachForums — the one that went offline in April — reappears with a new founder/owner
  • Fans React After NASCAR Confirms Ransomware Breach
  • Allianz Life says ‘majority’ of customers’ personal data stolen in cyberattack
  • Infinite Services notifying employees and patients of limited ransomware attack
  • The safe place for women to talk wasn’t so safe: hackers leak 13,000 user photos and IDs from the Tea app
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.
Menu
  • About
  • Privacy