Data and rights in the digital welfare state: the case of Denmark

References

• Agre, P. E. (1994). Surveillance and capture: Two models of privacy. The Information Society, 10(2), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.1994.9960162
   Google Scholar
• Akhtar, M., & Thomsen, F. K. (forthcoming). Human rights challenges in the use of automated decision-making in the public administration in Denmark. The Danish Institute for Human Rights.
   Google Scholar
• Alfer, B. for AlgoritmWatch (2019, January 29). Automating society Denmark. https://automatingsociety.algorithmwatch.org/report2020/denmark/
   Google Scholar
• Almedom, E., Sampath, N., & Ma, J. (2020). Algorithms and child welfare: The disparate impact of family surveillance in risk assessment technologies. Berkeley Public Policy Journal, 14–27. https://bppj.berkeley.edu/2021/02/02/algorithms-and-child-welfare-the-disparate-impact-of-family-surveillance-in-risk-assessment-technologies/
   Google Scholar
• Alston, P. (January 8, 2020). What the “digital welfare state” really means for human rights. OpenGlobalRights. https://www.openglobalrights.org/digital-welfare-state-and-what-it-means-for-human-rights
   Google Scholar
• Alston, P. (October 11, 2019). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston (A/74/493). United Nations, Human Rights Council.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. J., & Fienberg, S. E. (2001). Who counts? The politics of census-taking in contemporary America. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Arora, P. (2019). Benign dataveillance? Examining novel data-driven governance systems in India and China. First Monday, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i4.9840.
   Google Scholar
• Bekker, S. (2021). Fundamental rights in digital welfare states: The case of SyRI in the Netherlands. In O. Spijkers, W. G. Werner, & R. A. Wessel (Eds.), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2019. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 50, pp. 289–307). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Beniger, J. R. (2009). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bigo, D., Isin, E. F., & Evelyn, R. (2019). Data politics. In D. Bigo, E. F. Isin, & E. Ruppert (Eds.), Data politics: Worlds, subjects, rights (pp. 1–18). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bouk, D. (2015). How our days became numbered. Risk and the rise of the statistical individual. The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bucher, T. (2018). If … then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campolo, A., & Crawford, K. (2020). Enchanted determinism: Power without responsibility in artificial intelligence. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 6, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2020.277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: ‘E-Government’ in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 16(2), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. E. (2019). Between truth and power. The legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crosby, A. W. (1996). The measure of reality: Quantification and Western society, 1250–1600. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• The Danish Government. (March 3, 2018). Tidlig opsporing af udsatte børn. https://www.regeringen.dk/nyheder/2018/ghettoudspil/tidlig-opsporing-af-udsatte-boern/
   Google Scholar
• Deibert, R. (2013). Black code: Inside the battle for cyberspace. McClelland & Stewart/Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2008). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eiriksson, B. A. (2018). Social digital kontrol er på kant med borgernes ret til privatliv. In R. F. Jørgensen & B. K. Olsen (Eds.), Eksponeret - grænser for privatliv i en digital tid (pp. 29–45). Gads Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality – How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the poor. Sct. Martińs Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M., Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (2000). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Focault. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the New Left. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gladsaxe Municipality. (November 1, 2017). Ansøgning om konkrete forsøg i Frikommuneforsøg II. https://sm.dk/media/6874/samlede-ansoegninger-frikommuneforsoeg-ii.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, J., & Bowker, G. C. (2016). The data citizen, the quantified self, and personal genomics. In D. Nafus (Ed.), Quantified biosensing technologies in everyday life (pp. 211–226). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halpern, O. (2018). Golden futures. LIMN Issue 10: Chokepoints. https://limn.it/issues/chokepoints/
   Google Scholar
• Henman, P. (2010). Governing electronically: E-government and the reconfiguration of public administration, policy and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). One step forward and two steps back: E-government policies in practice. In Gil-Garcia, J., Pardo, T., & Luna-Reyes, L. (Eds.), Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics. Public Administration and Information Technology (Vol. 25). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61762-6_4
   Google Scholar
• Hoofnagle, C. J., Sloot, B. V. D., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2019). The European Union general data protection regulation: What it is and what it means. Information & Communications Technology Law, 28(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1573501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, R. F. (2019). Human rights in the age of platforms. Information policy. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, R. F., & Desai, T. (2017). Right to privacy meets online platforms: Exploring privacy complaints against Facebook and Google. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 35(2), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2017.1314110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaun, A., & Dencik, L. (2020). Datafication and the Welfare State: An introduction. Global Perspectives, 1(1), 12912. https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12912
   Google Scholar
• Kaye, D. (2018). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/73/48). United Nations General Assembly.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2018). Human decisions and machine predictions. The QUARTERLY Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laidler, J. (March 4, 2019). High tech is watching you, The Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/Harvard professor says surveillance capitalism is undermining democracy/
   Google Scholar
• Leurs, K., & Shepherd, T. (2017). Datafication and discrimination. In M. T. Schafer & K. V. Es (Eds.), The datafied society. Studying culture through data (pp. 211–231). Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyon, D. (2009). Identifying citizens. Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Maguire, J., & Ross Winthereik, B. (2019). Digitalising the state data centres and the power of exchange. Ethnos, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2019.1660391
   Google Scholar
• Mansell, R. (2017). Bits of power: Struggling for control of information and communication networks. The Political Economy of Communication, 5(1), 2–29. https://www.polecom.org/index.php/polecom/article/view/75n
   Google Scholar
• Markey, D. (March 16, 2016). The socialist network: Why China’s proposed credit rating system is anything but credible. Brown Political Review. https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/03/the-socialist-network-why-chinas-proposed-credit-rating-system-is-anything-but-credible/
   Google Scholar
• Miller, H., & Redhead, R. (2019). Beyond ‘rights-based approaches'? Employing a process and outcomes framework. International Journal of Human Rights, 23(5), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1607210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Industry Business and Financial Affairs. (March 2019). National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. The Danish Government. https://investindk.com/insights/the-danish-government-presents-national-ai-strategy
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Research. (1996). Redegørelse af 30/4 96 om IT-politik. Ministry of Research. https://www.folketingstidende.dk/samling/19951/redegoerelse/R18/19951_R18.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Social Affairs and the Interior. (December 21, 2017). Dataunderstøttet tidlig opsporing af udsatte børn. https://im.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2017/dec/regeringen-siger-ja-til-33-nye-forsoeg-i-frikommunerne/
   Google Scholar
• Nissenbaum, H. F. (2010). Privacy in context. Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford Law Books.
   Google Scholar
• Nobles, M. (2000). Shades of citizenship: Race and the census in modern politics. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pasquale, F. (2016). The Black Box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N. S. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saslow, K., & Lorentz, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence needs human rights: How the focus on ethical ai fails to address privacy, discrimination and other concerns. Stiftung Neue Verantwortung. https://www.stiftung-nv.de/sites/default/files/ai_needs_human_rights.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schou, J., & Hjelholt, M. (2018). Digital citizenship and neoliberalization: Governing digital citizens in Denmark. Citizenship Studies, 22(5), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2018.1477920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahin, S., & Zheng, P. (2018). Big data and the illusion of choice: Comparing the evolution of India's Aadhaar and China's social credit system as technosocial discourses. Social Science Computer Review, 38(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318789343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2018). E-government survey 2018. United Nations. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2018
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. SS Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
   Google Scholar
• Voss, J.-P., & Freeman, R. B. (2016). Introduction: Knowing governance. In J.-P. Voss & R. B. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing governance: The epistemic construction of political order (pp. 1–33). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• West, S. M. (2019). Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business & Society, 58(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317718185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum.
   Google Scholar
• The World Bank (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
   Google Scholar
• Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
   Google Scholar