From Vulnerable Data Subjects to Vulnerabilizing Data Practices: Navigating the Protection Paradox in AI-Based Analyses of Platformized Lives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15990v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 12:12:38 GMT
• Title: From Vulnerable Data Subjects to Vulnerabilizing Data Practices: Navigating the Protection Paradox in AI-Based Analyses of Platformized Lives
• Abstract summary: This paper traces a conceptual shift from understanding vulnerability as a static, essentialized property of data subjects to examining how it is actively enacted through data practices.<n>We argue that the ethical integrity of data science depends not just on who is studied, but on how technical pipelines transform "vulnerable" individuals into data subjects whose vulnerability can be further precarized.
• Score: 0.5437050212139087
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper traces a conceptual shift from understanding vulnerability as a static, essentialized property of data subjects to examining how it is actively enacted through data practices. Unlike reflexive ethical frameworks focused on missing or counter-data, we address the condition of abundance inherent to platformized life-a context where a near inexhaustible mass of data points already exists, shifting the ethical challenge to the researcher's choices in operating upon this existing mass. We argue that the ethical integrity of data science depends not just on who is studied, but on how technical pipelines transform "vulnerable" individuals into data subjects whose vulnerability can be further precarized. We develop this argument through an AI for Social Good (AI4SG) case: a journalist's request to use computer vision to quantify child presence in monetized YouTube 'family vlogs' for regulatory advocacy. This case reveals a "protection paradox": how data-driven efforts to protect vulnerable subjects can inadvertently impose new forms of computational exposure, reductionism, and extraction. Using this request as a point of departure, we perform a methodological deconstruction of the AI pipeline to show how granular technical decisions are ethically constitutive. We contribute a reflexive ethics protocol that translates these insights into a reflexive roadmap for research ethics surrounding platformized data subjects. Organized around four critical junctures-dataset design, operationalization, inference, and dissemination-the protocol identifies technical questions and ethical tensions where well-intentioned work can slide into renewed extraction or exposure. For every decision point, the protocol offers specific prompts to navigate four cross-cutting vulnerabilizing factors: exposure, monetization, narrative fixing, and algorithmic optimization. Rather than uncritically...

Related papers

• Sell Data to AI Algorithms Without Revealing It: Secure Data Valuation and Sharing via Homomorphic Encryption [10.12846924939717]
  We introduce the Trustworthy Influence Protocol (TIP), a privacy-preserving framework that enables buyers to quantify the utility of external data without decrypting the raw assets.<n>By integrating Homomorphic Encryption with gradient-based influence functions, our approach allows for the precise, blinded scoring of data points against a buyer's specific AI model.<n> Empirical simulations in healthcare and generative AI domains validate the framework's economic potential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T16:35:09Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Rethinking Data Protection in the (Generative) Artificial Intelligence Era [138.07763415496288]
  We propose a four-level taxonomy that captures the diverse protection needs arising in modern (generative) AI models and systems.<n>Our framework offers a structured understanding of the trade-offs between data utility and control, spanning the entire AI pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T02:45:51Z)
• Illusions of Relevance: Using Content Injection Attacks to Deceive Retrievers, Rerankers, and LLM Judges [52.96987928118327]
  We find that embedding models for retrieval, rerankers, and large language model (LLM) relevance judges are vulnerable to content injection attacks.<n>We identify two primary threats: (1) inserting unrelated or harmful content within passages that still appear deceptively "relevant", and (2) inserting entire queries or key query terms into passages to boost their perceived relevance.<n>Our study systematically examines the factors that influence an attack's success, such as the placement of injected content and the balance between relevant and non-relevant material.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T18:02:15Z)
• Ensuring Medical AI Safety: Interpretability-Driven Detection and Mitigation of Spurious Model Behavior and Associated Data [14.991686165405959]
  We show the applicability of the framework using four medical datasets across two modalities.<n>We successfully identify and unlearn these biases in VGG16, ResNet50, and contemporary Vision Transformer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T16:39:09Z)
• Footprints of Data in a Classifier: Understanding the Privacy Risks and Solution Strategies [0.9208007322096533]
  Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (Right Erasure) requires data to be permanently removed from a system to prevent potential compromise.<n>One such issue arises from the residual footprints of training data embedded within predictive models.<n>This study examines how two fundamental aspects of classifier systems - training quality and classifier training methodology - contribute to privacy vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T13:56:37Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Addressing contingency in algorithmic (mis)information classification: Toward a responsible machine learning agenda [0.9659642285903421]
  Data scientists need to take a stance on the objectivity, authoritativeness and legitimacy of the sources of truth" used for model training and testing. Despite (and due to) their reported high accuracy and performance, ML-driven moderation systems have the potential to shape online public debate and create downstream negative impacts such as undue censorship and the reinforcing of false beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-05T17:34:51Z)
• AI-based Re-identification of Behavioral Clickstream Data [0.0]
  This paper demonstrates that similar techniques can be applied to successfully re-identify individuals purely based on their behavioral patterns. The mere resemblance of behavioral patterns between records is sufficient to correctly attribute behavioral data to identified individuals. We also demonstrate how synthetic data can offer a viable alternative, that is shown to be resilient against our introduced AI-based re-identification attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-21T16:49:00Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• Detecting Cross-Modal Inconsistency to Defend Against Neural Fake News [57.9843300852526]
  We introduce the more realistic and challenging task of defending against machine-generated news that also includes images and captions. To identify the possible weaknesses that adversaries can exploit, we create a NeuralNews dataset composed of 4 different types of generated articles. In addition to the valuable insights gleaned from our user study experiments, we provide a relatively effective approach based on detecting visual-semantic inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-16T14:13:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.