Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation

Malgieri, Gianclaudio; Comandè, Giovanni

doi:10.1093/idpl/ipx019

Cited by 153 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, scholars are deeply divided over the implications of this provision. Some argue that it only refers to the general structure and architecture of the processing model, but that explanations about individual decisions or concrete weights and features of the model need not be provided (Wachter et al 2017;Malgieri and Comandé 2017;Party 2017). Others suggest that information can only be meaningful if it helps the data subject to exercise her rights under Art.…”

Section: Explainability In Ai and The Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explainable AI under contract and tort law: legal incentives and technical challenges

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper shows that the law, in subtle ways, may set hitherto unrecognized incentives for the adoption of explainable machine learning applications. In doing so, we make two novel contributions. First, on the legal side, we show that to avoid liability, professional actors, such as doctors and managers, may soon be legally compelled to use explainable ML models. We argue that the importance of explainability reaches far beyond data protection law, and crucially influences questions of contractual and tort liability for the use of ML models. To this effect, we conduct two legal case studies, in medical and corporate merger applications of ML. As a second contribution, we discuss the (legally required) trade-off between accuracy and explainability and demonstrate the effect in a technical case study in the context of spam classification.

show abstract

Section: Explainability In Ai and The Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explainable AI under contract and tort law: legal incentives and technical challenges

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…35 Others go beyond this and state that, due to the need of a balancing test, Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is a more protective basis for individuals' rights than consent, therefore, arguing in favour of legitimate interests being used as a basis for the processing of electronic communications personal data. 36 Special relevance acquires the reasonable expectations of the data subject 37 which may be different depending on the relationship between the controller and the individual. 38 For instance, a person that is already a customer of a Chinese food restaurant (and therefore has a prior relationship with the controller), would reasonably expect the restaurant to keep his or her name and home address for future delivery orders.…”

Section: The 3 Steps: What Is a Legitimate Interest When Is There Nementioning

confidence: 99%

“…35 Van der Sloot and Borgesius [46]. 36 Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL) [12]. The report makes an argument in favour of enabling the use of legitimate interest as a basis for the processing of electronic communications personal data (both content and metadata), contrary to the position taken by the ePrivacy proposed Regulation, which allows for the processing on this data with the consent of the user but not under the legitimate interest of the service provider.…”

Section: What Is It? (Article 44 Gdpr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This discordancy has triggered numerous debates about the existence or not of a right to an explanation. An exhaustive discussion about this can be found in Wachter, Mittelstadt and Floridi [49]; Malgieri and Comandé [36] and Goodman and Flaxman [24]. Understanding the legal provisions that allow processing.…”

Section: Not Solely Automated Decision-making (Profiling)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the legal provisions that allow processing and profiling of personal data—an analysis of GDPR provisions and principles

González

Hert

2019

ERA Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research-You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain-You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

show abstract

“…At least in those cases, the data subject should receive meaningful information about the logic involved in the processing, information on the significance of the processing, and information on the envisaged consequences of the processing for him or her. However, the very existence of the right to explanation in the GDPR is a subject of wide academic discussion (for works against its existence, see Wachter, Mittelstadt & Floridi, 2017; for its existence, see Goodman & Flaxman, 2016;Malgieri & Comandé, 2017;Selbst & Powles, 2017), due to a number of doubts concerning the interpretation of these provisions. They raise as many questions as Article 22, for example: What kind of information on the logic involved should the data subject be provided with?…”

Section: Automated Decision-making Regulation In the Gdpr And Scientimentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Decision-Making and the Precautionary Principle in EU Law

Mazur

2019

Baltic Journal of European Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article is predicated upon the allegation that there is a similarity between the scientific uncertainty linked to the hazard which human interventions pose to the natural environment and the hazard which the development of automated decision-making techniques poses to certain aspects of human lives in the digital environment. On the basis of this allegation, the analysis examines the similarities between the European environmental law, which is crucial for the natural environment, and the European data protection law, which is fundamental for the digital environment. As there are measures already adopted by the data protection law from the environmental law, such as impact assessments and the right to access information, the main hypothesis of this analysis is to consider whether there are further inspirations for the development of European data protection law which could be drawn from environmental law, regarding the scientific uncertainty which is common to these two areas of regulation. The article examines a legal measure, namely, the precautionary principle, as the conjectural response to the challenges linked to the development of the new technologies. The experiences collected in the area of environmental law concerning the precautionary principle are analysed as a source of lessons to be learned concerning the regulatory measures adopted in order to deal with scientific uncertainty, not only in the natural environment, but also in the digital one.

show abstract

Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation

Cited by 153 publications

References 0 publications

Explainable AI under contract and tort law: legal incentives and technical challenges

Explainable AI under contract and tort law: legal incentives and technical challenges

Understanding the legal provisions that allow processing and profiling of personal data—an analysis of GDPR provisions and principles

Automated Decision-Making and the Precautionary Principle in EU Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About