Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation
Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation
复制标题
为什么一般数据保护条例中存在自动决策的易读性权利
DOI：
10.1093/idpl/ipx019
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Giovanni Comandé
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gianclaudio Malgieri;Giovanni Comandé
本文的目的是分析GDPR中“解释权”的真实的边界，并在“黑箱社会”中区分不同层次的信息和消费者意识。为了将算法的透明性和可理解性联合收割机结合起来，我们提出了算法的易读性的新概念。·我们认为，在这一领域需要一个系统的解释，因为它不仅对个人有利，而且对企业也有利。这可能是审计算法和纠正未知机器偏见的机会，从而类似地提高决策输出的质量。·因此，我们展示了对GDPR第13-15条和第22条的系统性解释是如何必要的，特别是考虑到：所需的最低人为干预阈值，以便决策“完全”自动化（第22条第1款）也可包括名义上的人为干预;所设想的对个人的“重大影响”（第22条第1款）也可包括市场操纵、价格歧视等;应向数据主体提供有关决策的逻辑、意义和后果的“有意义的信息”（第15（1）（h）条）应理解为算法处理的“架构”和“实现”的“易读性”;商业秘密保护可能会限制数据主体的访问权，但一般法律的倾向于数据保护权，这应该会减少商业秘密保护的影响。此外，我们建议数据控制者应执行“易读性测试”，以遵守提供有关自动决策所涉及逻辑的有意义信息的义务。
• The aim of this contribution is to analyse the real borderlines of the 'right to explanation' in the GDPR and to discretely distinguish between different levels of information and of consumers' awareness in the 'black box society'. In order to combine transparency and comprehensibility we propose the new concept of algorithm 'legibility'. • We argue that a systemic interpretation is needed in this field, since it can be beneficial not only for individuals but also for businesses. This may be an opportunity for auditing algorithms and correcting unknown machine biases, thus similarly enhancing the quality of decision-making outputs. • Accordingly, we show how a systemic interpretation of articles 13-15 and 22 GDPR is necessary, considering in particular that: the threshold of minimum human intervention required so that the decision-making is 'solely' automated (Art. 22(1)) can also include nominal human intervention; the envisaged 'significant effects' on individuals (Art. 22(1)) can encompass as well marketing manipulation, price discrimination, etc.; 'meaningful information' that should be provided to data subjects about the logic, significance and consequences of decision-making (Art. 15(1)(h)) should be read as 'legibility' of "architecture" and "implementation" of algorithmic processing; trade secret protection might limit the right of access of data subjects, but there is a general legal favour for data protection rights that should reduce the impact of trade secrets protection. • In addition, we recommend a 'legibility test' that data controllers should perform in order to comply with the duty to provide meaningful information about the logic involved in an automated decision-making.