the right to privacy also in public spaces and in the internum” (psychological “forum domain). At the same time, as regards information privacy, it has been proposed to abandon the concept of personal data as a cornerstone of data protection altogether, and seek remedies to the harms’. ‘information-induced In other terms, privacy is more and more seen as the protection of “uncomputability” of humans. This article proposes a reconstruction of the existing legal provisions that could regulate this area, e.g. Article 3 EU Charter of Fundamental Right (right to even – mental integrity) in combination with Article 7 and 8; secondary laws regulating – mental freedom, like Unfair Commercial practice directive, and in particular the automated decision-making within data protection regulation (articles 15 and 22, GDPR). In particular, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive formally addresses freedom of choice of consumers. Recital 6 refers to practices directly harm “which consumers’ economic interests and thereby indirectly harm the economic interests of legitimate competitors”. Although it clarifies that advertising and marketing “accepted practices, such as legitimate product placement, brand differentiation or the offering of incentives which may legitimately affect consumers’ perceptions of products and influence their behaviour” can be legal, it makes clear that the key element to approve them is that advertising does not the consumer’s “impair After this analysis, what is necessary is a reconsideration of the traditional idea of privacy and of the individual (consumer, data subject, user) starting from “average” existing legal groups (age, mental condition, etc.), considering the “vulnerable” challenge of the commercial exploitation of personalized vulnerabilities. Kayleen Manwaring, University of New South Wales emerging information technologies outpace consumer protection law in “Will Australia? The case of digital consumer manipulation” Introduction
the right to privacy also in public spaces and in the “forum internum” (psychological domain). At the same time, as regards information privacy, it has been proposed to abandon the concept of personal data as a cornerstone of data protection altogether, and seek remedies to the ‘information-induced harms’. In other terms, privacy is more and more seen as the protection of “uncomputability” of humans. This article proposes a reconstruction of the existing legal provisions that could regulate this area, e.g. Article 3 EU Charter of Fundamental Right (right to – even mental – integrity) in combination with Article 7 and 8; secondary laws regulating mental freedom, like Unfair Commercial practice directive, and in particular the automated decision-making within data protection regulation (articles 15 and 22, GDPR). In particular, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive formally addresses freedom of choice of consumers. Recital 6 refers to practices “which directly harm consumers’ economic interests and thereby indirectly harm the economic interests of legitimate competitors”. Although it clarifies that “accepted advertising and marketing practices, such as legitimate product placement, brand differentiation or the offering of incentives which may legitimately affect consumers’ perceptions of products and influence their behaviour” can be legal, it makes clear that the key element to approve them is that advertising does not “impair the consumer’s After this analysis, what is necessary is a reconsideration of the traditional idea of privacy and of the “average” individual (consumer, data subject, user) starting from existing legal “vulnerable” groups (age, mental condition, etc.), considering the challenge of the commercial exploitation of personalized vulnerabilities. Kayleen Manwaring, University of New South Wales “Will emerging information technologies outpace consumer protection law in Australia? The case of digital consumer manipulation” Introduction
BILETA%20abstract%20collation%202018.docx