All issues > Volume 14 > Issue 14:2 (164-414)

Argument invention (inventio) has traditionally been regarded as one of the five main components of rhetoric, but has remained an ambiguous, vague and highly contested concept, made even more confusing by its dependence on the Aristotelian topics, supposedly the places in which the rhetorical persuader can find arguments useful to support or attack a claim. The advent of two recently developed computational tools for argument invention, the Carneades Argumentation System and IBM’s Watson Debater tool, calls for a rethinking of the notion of argument invention in line with the state of the art of formal and computational argumentation systems in artificial intelligence. The role of argumentation schemes is an important part of this investigation into argument invention.

The increasing number of smart devices entering our homes have implications for privacy. Not only do we bring in more spying devices into the home, often these smart objects are linked to data streams or other devices that leave the home – thereby literally taking private matters into public space. In this paper, we take the context of the Netherlands to show that current legal definitions and protections of the home are inadequate to deal with novel privacy threats that stem from devices that interact with us beyond the screen.

In October 2016 Geofeedia made the news when it was reported that police services in North America had contracted with it for data analytics based on georeferenced information posted to social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook. Geofeedia is not the only data analytics company to mine social media data and to market its services to government authorities. These activities raise important issues around the transparency of state surveillance activities, as well as the targeting of protesters exercising their constitutional rights to free speech. This paper examines how the public sector reliance on purchased georeferenced data and analytics changes the dynamics of transparency of government action and calls for new measures and approaches.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be applied from May 2018. One of the many new societal developments it has to deal with is the Quantified Self (QS). This concerns data that are collected about a person by apps that aim to improve his or her life. This article answers the question to what extent the tools and assumptions that underlie the creation of QS influence an individual’s freedom and to what extent the GDPR can contribute to the protection of this freedom. The article finds that QS can restrict an individual’s internal and external freedom. It suggests that everybody should meet a certain standard or group norm, which influences the choices individuals make. This is an internal restriction of freedom, which is largely unknown. A more familiar problem is the external restriction of freedom. This happens when data are analysed by the QS app or by third parties. They can make assumptions about a person on the basis of these data, which influences the possible options for an individual. The GDPR does protect certain elements of external freedom better than the EDPD. This mainly has to do with the rules related to data about health, and more stringent rules in general. The GDPR does not protect the internal aspect of freedom, although the possible risks of this internal restriction can be very serious.

This interdisciplinary co-authored Analysis piece introduces identity and integrity, which are argued to sit at the core of the person. It analyses approaches taken to these concepts by legal regimes, particularly in the context of individuals using artificial limbs or digital avatars. The piece concludes that law engages with identity and integrity to a limited and incomplete extent; and that law is thus inadequate in its engagement with the person, and its meaning making in this respect. This piece draws on two interdisciplinary funded projects, funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

The European Commission’s draft ePrivacy Regulation appears to transfer legal responsibility for the storage and retrieval of cookies from websites to web browsers. However, where the subsequent processing of cookies involves personal data, website operators will still be responsible for ensuring this complies with the General Data Protection Regulation. Applying general, rather than specific, legislation to this processing should result in a better experience for both the operators of websites and their users.