A/HRC/36/48 from engaging in certain activities or behaviours for fear of being watched. The more invisible and unobtrusive the technology, the less likely users may fully comprehend its privacy implications. Moreover, “once robots have the skills to communicate and interact, not only will they exchange data (among themselves; between themselves and an entity), but this communication may be imperceptible to humans”.8 The implications for privacy of such exchanges must be better understood and assessed. 53. Other concerns relate to processing and storage of data. According to article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights data processing should not take place for any purpose other than the one originally consented to, and information beyond what is necessary to achieve the purpose should not be gathered (principle of data minimization). In addition, private information should not be used for purposes incompatible with the Covenant. Information must not be kept for longer than necessary. Users should, moreover, retain control over the use of their data and be able to change their mind about data retention and processing. In its general comment No. 16 on the right to privacy, the Human Rights Committee stated, moreover, that the gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law (para. 10). Quantitatively, there will be a significant difference when applying the principle of data minimization to robotics and artificial intelligence rather than human interactions, as these technologies, by definition, require vast amounts of data to function properly. Data quality and relevance are essential aspects in deciding what data should be collected and stored in the digital age. Furthermore, the principle of data minimization offers useful guidance to determine what data should be stored and for how long, or what information should be shared and in what format, i.e. whether it should be anonymized. 54. The right to informational self-determination, as defined by the German Federal Constitutional Court, is intrinsic in an individual’s general right of personality and their dignity, and constitutes the authority of the individual to decide for himself or herself, on the basis of the idea of self‑determination, when and within what limits facts about his or her personal life shall be disclosed. 9 Therefore, an older person, in accordance with the right to informational self-determination, has to be able “to decide what information about himself should be communicated to others and under what circumstances”. 10 Besides disclosure, the protection extends to collection, storage and use, and it also involves the right to rectify records and to be forgotten, including the right to retain control of what becomes of the post-mortem reputation and legacy. The right to be forgotten is particularly important when a person no longer consents to the use of assistive technology. 11 Understanding the impact of autonomous robots on the right to informational selfdetermination requires an appreciation of the ways in which data are, and will be, utilized by care robots. 55. The use of technology also has the potential to enhance privacy. In residential settings, where privacy is, by definition, compromised as a result of shared living arrangements and caregiving duties, technology could offer opportunities to create zones of intimacy. 12 Electronic bracelets, for instance, may allow older persons to move to more private spaces. There may also be a preference for intimate tasks, such as bathing or dressing, to be carried out by a machine instead of a human caregiver for reasons of 8 9 10 11 12 Nathalie Nevejans, “European civil law rules in robotics: study for the JURI Committee”, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Legal Affairs, 2016, p. 22. German Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 65, 1, II 1 (a). Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York, Atheneum, 1967). See, e.g., Court of Justice of the European Union, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos and Mario Costeja González, Case C-131/12, available from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&docid=152065; Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, “Useful void: the art of forgetting in the age of ubiquitous computing”, KSG Working Paper No. RWP07-022, April 2007, available from https://ssrn.com/abstract=976541. Alistair Roelf Niemeijer, Surveilling Autonomy, Securing Care: Exploring Good Care with Surveillance Technology in Residential Care for Vulnerable People (Amsterdam, VU University Press, 2015). 11