The right not to be subjected to AI profiling based on publicly available data

Scope of the problem: AI vs. “just” profiling

• Several argue AI isn’t special: the core harm is profiling itself (by humans, adtech, or data brokers), using both public and private data.
• Others note AI changes things by making surveillance and profiling vastly cheaper and more scalable, turning what used to be rare and labor‑intensive into routine and ubiquitous.
• Some see this as a qualitative shift: “quantity has a quality of its own.”

Surveillance, enforcement, and built‑in inefficiency

• Historically, privacy and “wiggle room” were protected by limits on enforcement capacity; inefficiency functioned as a societal safety valve.
• Automated systems (face recognition, speed cameras, behavioral analytics) threaten to move from ~10% to near‑100% enforcement, effectively making punishments far harsher without changing statutes.
• Multiple comments defend inefficiency as essential to freedom, proportionality, and economic balance.

Rights, regulation, and practicality

• Skeptics see a “right not to be profiled” as unenforceable: once data exists, profiling is technically unstoppable, similar to piracy.
• Others say rights still matter as a legal basis to restrict companies/governments, but enforcement must be against powerful entities, not individuals.
• There is cynicism that the same actors who’d enforce such rights are those most interested in profiling, especially states and large platforms.
• Opt‑out frameworks are criticized as unworkable in complex data/ML pipelines; some argue only strict opt‑in or explicit, narrow allowed-uses can work.

Examples of harmful or dubious profiling

• CRM/AI tools generating personality profiles based on public data are reported as partly accurate but also badly wrong, yet potentially influential for hiring or sales decisions.
• Some suggest such outputs might verge on libel if treated as factual.
• Ad and social media profiles are often wildly inaccurate, highlighting both error and opacity.
• Credit scoring is raised as an existing, opaque profiling system with serious life impact; debate over how “simple” or “nefarious” it is, but broad agreement that lack of transparency and recourse is problematic.

Inevitability vs. mitigation

• Many see ubiquitous AI profiling as inevitable given strong financial and political incentives.
• Proposed “next steps” include: stronger data‑deletion and ownership rights (though their limits are noted), shifting legal liability for holding data, AI literacy, clear labeling of AI‑generated content, and evolving social norms about what is considered acceptable to use or mention.