Law, technology, and algorithmic racism
PDF

Keywords

Algorithmic Racism
Artificial Intelligence
Law and Technology
Digital Discrimination
Fundamental Rights

How to Cite

Campos, W. J. (2026). Law, technology, and algorithmic racism. Brazilian Journal of Law, Technology and Innovation, 4(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.59224/bjlti.v4i1.75-86

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the legal challenges associated with the phenomenon of algorithmic racism, considering the intersection between technology, digital discrimination, and fundamental rights. The research adopts an inductive methodology with an exploratory and theoretical character, grounded in an interdisciplinary literature review, including legal doctrine, critical data science studies, and national and international regulatory frameworks such as the LGPD and the GDPR. The study shows that artificial intelligence systems, by relying on biased historical data, can reproduce and amplify racial inequalities, negatively impacting the principle of equality and the dignity of the human person. It concludes that a robust legal framework is necessary, centered on algorithmic transparency, multisectoral accountability, and the implementation of anti-discriminatory algorithmic justice capable of protecting fundamental rights in digital environments.

https://doi.org/10.59224/bjlti.v4i1.75-86
PDF

References

Almeida, Silvio. Structural Racism (Pólen 2018) [original title: Racismo Estrutural].

Benjamin, Ruha. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code (Polity Press 2019).

Brazil. Law No. 13,709 of Aug. 14, 2018, Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD), Diário Oficial da União [D.O.U.] of Aug. 15, 2018 (Braz.), http://www.planalto.gov.br.

Buolamwini, Joy & Gebru, Timnit. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification, 81 Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 1 (2018).

Calo, Ryan. Digital Market Manipulation, 82 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 995 (2014).

Citron, Danielle Keats & Pasquale, Frank. The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2014).

Crawford, Kate & Schultz, Jason. Big Data and Due Process: Toward a Framework to Redress Predictive Privacy Harms, 55 B.C. L. Rev. 93 (2014).

Eubanks, Virginia. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (St. Martin’s Press 2018).

European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 Apr. 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.

European Union. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. (L 1689).

Gillis, Thomas & Spiess, Joerg. Big Data and Discrimination: Lessons from the United States, 5 European Data Protection L. Rev. 258 (2019).

Hacker, Philipp & Petkova, Bogdana. Reining in the Big Promise of Big Data: Transparency, Inequality, and New Regulatory Frontiers, 15 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2017).

Kroll, Joshua A. et al. Accountable Algorithms, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. 633 (2017).

Lepri, Bruno et al. Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-Making Processes, 31 Phil. & Tech. 611 (2018).

Mantelero, Alessandro et al. Bias in Social Media Content Management: What Do Human Rights Have to Do With It? (Geneva Acad. 2022), https://www.geneva-academy.ch/.

Miller, Claire. When Algorithms Discriminate, N.Y. Times (2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/upshot/when-algorithms-discriminate.html.

Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism (N.Y.U. Press 2018).

O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (Crown Publ’g Grp. 2016).

OECD. OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence (2019), https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles/.

Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard Univ. Press 2015).

Ponce, Andrés et al. Bias and Discrimination in AI: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, SSRN (2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3842194.

Richardson, Rashida; Schultz, Jason & Craig, Kate. Dirty Data, Bad Predictions: How Civil Rights Violations Impact Police Data, Predictive Policing Systems, and Justice, 94 N.Y.U. L. Rev. Online 192 (2019).

Selbst, Andrew D. & Barocas, Solon. The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 1085 (2019).

Speicher, Till; Koch, Sebastian & Singer, Natasha. Potential Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising, in WWW ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference 933 (ACM 2018).

Sweeney, Latanya. Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery, 11 ACM Queue 10 (2013).

UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/.

Wang, Xiaoyang et al. Algorithmic Discrimination: Examining Its Types and Regulatory Measures with Emphasis on US Legal Practices, 7 Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (2024), https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1320277.

Zarsky, Tal Z. Transparent Predictions, 2013 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1503 (2013).

Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (PublicAffairs 2019).

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2026 Wellington José Campos