This chapter addresses autonomy’s role in democratic governance. Political authority may be justifiable or not. Whether it is justified and how it can come to be justified is a question of political legitimacy, which is in turn a function of autonomy. We begin, in section 8.1, by describing two uses of technology: crime predicting technology used to drive policing practices and social media technology used to influence elections (including by Cambridge Analytica and by the Internet Research Agency). In section 8.2 we consider several views of legitimacy and argue for a hybrid version of normative legitimacy based on one recently offered by Fabienne Peter. In section 8.3 we explain that the connection between political legitimacy and autonomy is that legitimacy is grounded in legitimating processes, which are in turn based on autonomy. Algorithmic systems—among them PredPol and the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook-Internet Research Agency amalgam—can hinder that legitimation process and conflict with democratic legitimacy, as we argue in section 8.4. We conclude by returning to several cases that serve as through-lines to the book: Loomis, Wagner, and Houston Schools.

Russian interference in the 2016 election was not an isolated event but was, rather, a cluster of related techniques, each of which will be described in this chapter. There is wide agreement in government and intelligence circles about what happened, though the Trump administration has at times stated contradictory things about whether the interference occurred, or contradictory characterizations of the interference. There was: (1) hacking of email accounts and the public release of information stolen from these accounts; (2) social media campaigns, including paid advertisements on Facebook and postings on Twitter engineered by so-called troll farms; and (3) the infiltration of advocacy organizations such as the National Rifle Association, with the goal of influencing the domestic political landscape. These activities raise two important issues that are analyzed in this chapter. First, are the actors who engage in this interference private actors or state agents, and does it make a difference? Second, based on the methods used, what conclusions can be drawn about Russia’s strategic objectives in interfering in the 2016 elections? These questions must be answered in order to answer the fundamental question, i.e., whether election interference violates international law, and if yes, in what way.