English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper endorses the idea that the  right to contest  provided for by art. 22, § 3 GDPR, actually is the apex of a progressive set of tools the data subject has at his disposal to cope with automatic decisions and it should work as an architectural principle to create  contestable systems.  But in order to achieve that important role, it cannot be reduce to the right of human intervention, also provided for by art.22, § 3, nor to a generic opposition to the outcome of the automatic processing. Thus, drawing from a thorough analysis of the relationships among the rights included in art. 22, § 3 GDPR as well as from the juridical proper meaning of “ contestatio ”, it is concluded that  the right to contest  has its own proper nature as a hybrid substantial-processual right that is able to give concrete shape to all the other rights indicated in art. 22, § 3, included the much discussed right to explanation.

Put Dialectics into the Machine: Protection against Automatic-decision-making through a Deeper Understanding of Contestability by Design