Revision history of "Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR’s Approach to Algorithmic Accountability" (Q2401)

Diff selection: Mark the radio boxes of the revisions to compare and hit enter or the button at the bottom.
Legend: (cur) = difference with latest revision, (prev) = difference with preceding revision, m = minor edit.

curprev 13:01, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 17,837 bytes +708‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Governing algorithmic decision-making is hard. [] in significant part, solving the governance problem is hard because we cannot agree on why to regulate. A growing literature now focuses on regulating alg...
curprev 12:56, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 17,129 bytes +690‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): If aggregated by third parties—the media or civil society—individual stories can trigger soft accountability mechanisms, like market responses or naming-and-shaming. The question is whether the indivi...
curprev 12:53, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 16,439 bytes +670‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): because the GDPR relies on collaborative governance, its attempts at individual transparency must serve a dual role. Absent policy changes, the GDPR’s individual transparency provisions will need to ser...
curprev 12:52, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 15,769 bytes +661‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): To accomplish meaningful oversight, both NGOs and the press will need to link individual disclosures into politically effective group narratives, revealing what is going on over an algorithmic decision-ma...
curprev 12:52, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 15,108 bytes +80‎ ‎Changed claim: comment (P126): [high-quality collaborative governance in the absence of true public transparency] will depend on the ability of NGOs and other policy advocates to harness the GDPR’s system of individual transparency r...
curprev 12:52, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 15,028 bytes +545‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): It will depend on the ability of NGOs and other policy advocates to harness the GDPR’s system of individual transparency rights coupled possibly with freedom of information laws to obtain both enforceme...
curprev 12:51, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 14,483 bytes +597‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): It is possible that despite the GDPR’s lack of public transparency and input by third parties, impact assessments and maybe draft codes of conduct will be made available to the public through other mean...
curprev 12:50, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 13,886 bytes +609‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): An impact assessment, in other words, is supposed to be a tripartite conversation between a regulated entity, the regulator, and third parties such as impacted persons or civil society organizations. In t...
curprev 12:41, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 13,277 bytes +674‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): The GDPR for the most part envisions collaboration as taking place between regulators and regulated private parties, to the exclusion of third parties, such as civil society or external experts. This thre...
curprev 12:12, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 12,603 bytes +696‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Intriguingly the GDPR’s absence of public-facing and stakeholder-facing accountability suggests that individual transparency rights may have to serve a crucial accountability role in its system of colla...
curprev 11:51, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 11,907 bytes +586‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): individual narratives about discrimination or bias may be more palatable to the public than agency-produced reports or statistics, and could feed back into collaborative governance by contributing to ongo...
curprev 11:51, 9 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 11,321 bytes +662‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Collaborative governance is, at best, a highly tailored, site-calibrated regulatory system that aims to pull inputs from, obtain buy-in from, and affect the internal institutional structures and decision-...
curprev 07:48, 9 December 2019‎ Genferei talk contribs‎ 10,659 bytes +354‎ ‎Created claim: DOI (P62): 10.2139/ssrn.3351404
curprev 09:49, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 10,305 bytes +521‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Human decision makers have the capacity to expand decisional context when it seems unfair to ignore information a machine might not know is relevant (“You are speeding on the way to the hospital”)
curprev 09:47, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 9,784 bytes +533‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): The third category of concerns about algorithmic decision-making, justificatory concerns, aims to ensure the legitimacy of a decisional system. Justificatory concerns resonate strongly with calls for rule...
curprev 09:45, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 9,251 bytes +554‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): [The third type of] dignitary concerns include concerns (more familiar to Americans) about individual autonomy. Algorithmic decision-making founded on individual profiling limits the choices and, thus, th...
curprev 09:45, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 8,697 bytes +608‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): A second type of dignitary concern appeals, however, across cultural divides. Automatically making decisions based on what categories an individual falls into—that is, what correlations can be shown bet...
curprev 09:44, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 8,089 bytes +588‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): The first [version of the dignitary argument], largely European, criticism of algorithmic decision- making is that allowing a decision about humans to be made by a machine inherently treats humans as obje...
curprev 09:44, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 7,501 bytes -2‎ ‎Changed claim: comment (P126): The dignitary argument posits that an individual human being should be respected as a whole, free person. Being subjected to algorithmic decision-making threatens individuals’ personhood by objectifying...
curprev 09:43, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 7,503 bytes +666‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): The dignitary argument posits that an individual human being should be respected as a whole, free person. Being subjected to algorithmic decision-making threatens individuals’ personhood by objectifying...
curprev 09:42, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 6,837 bytes +530‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): The other two rationales for regulating algorithmic decision-making, however, suggest that systemic oversight is not enough. Both dignitary and justificatory reasoning point towards including individual r...
curprev 09:42, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 6,307 bytes +582‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): The instrumental rationale for regulating algorithmic decision-making counsels that regulation should try to correct these problems, often by using systemic accountability mechanisms, such as ex ante tech...
curprev 09:42, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 5,725 bytes +579‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): the dominant rationale for regulating algorithmic decision-making is an instrumental (or consequentialist) rationale. We should regulate algorithms, this reasoning goes, to prevent the consequences of bak...
curprev 09:41, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 5,146 bytes +616‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Concerns about autonomy and the potential for manipulation, to a great degree, motivated the indignation around Cambridge Analytica’s targeted manipulation of U.S. voters prior to the 2016 election (and...
curprev 09:41, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 4,530 bytes +650‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Failing to be transparent about the fact that individuals are being targeted or the reasons why they are targeted itself may threaten autonomy. Secret profiling and decision-making can lead to manipulatio...
curprev 09:39, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 3,880 bytes +460‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Limiting the choices we see—whether by failing to show opportunities or by offering only bad options—limits our freedom to make choices.
curprev 09:39, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 3,420 bytes +441‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Algorithmic decision-making founded on individual profiling limits the choices and, thus, the freedom a person will have.
curprev 09:37, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 2,979 bytes +485‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): the “ ‘data shadows’ . . . threaten to usurp the constitutive authority of the physical self despite their relatively attenuated and often misleading nature”
curprev 09:37, 8 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 2,494 bytes +544‎ ‎Created claim: comment (P126): Secret profiles and decisions made based on secret profiling can threaten personhood and thus dignity by proscribing active individual involvement in the construction of this objectified version of the self.
curprev 08:01, 6 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 1,950 bytes +422‎ ‎Created claim: concerns (P110): explainable AI (Q1949)
curprev 08:01, 6 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 1,528 bytes +422‎ ‎Created claim: author (P121): Margot E. Kaminski (Q2003)
curprev 08:01, 6 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 1,106 bytes +393‎ ‎Created claim: official website (P15): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3351404
curprev 08:01, 6 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 713 bytes +416‎ ‎Created claim: instance of (P3): scholarly article (Q210)
curprev 08:01, 6 December 2019‎ Podehaye talk contribs‎ 297 bytes +297‎ ‎Created a new Item: Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR’s Approach to Algorithmic Accountability

Revision history of "Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR’s Approach to Algorithmic Accountability" (Q2401)

Navigation menu

Search