Automated decisions based on profiling

Information, explanation or justification – That is the question!

Lokke Moerel, marijn storm

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This article discusses the obligations of controllers with regard to automated decision making; must they provide individuals with information, an explanation or a justification? The answer is: all three. The main underlying rationales of EU data protection laws are preventing information inequality and information injustice. These rationales can only be served if controllers cannot hide behind algorithms for automated individual decision-making. In order to comply with their data protection obligations, controllers must design, develop, and apply algorithms in a transparent, predictable and verifiable manner. Controllers will be accountable for the outcome and will therefore have to be able to ultimately justify the criteria based on which automated decision-making takes place. The current academic debate whether individuals have a limited right to information only or also a right to an explanation, misses the bigger picture, with the risk that companies do the same. The article uses multidisciplinary sources from regulatory studies, law, and computer science to understand the multifaceted implications of algorithm accountability on the protection of personal data and the expectations that individuals may have thereof. The article concludes with an overview of the requirements of white box development.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationAutonomous systems and the law
EditorsNikita Aggerwal, Horst Eidenmuller, Luca Enriques, Jennifer Payne, Kristin van Zwieten
PublisherVerlag C.H. Beck
Pages91-98
Number of pages8
ISBN (Print)978-3-8487-5733-6
Publication statusPublished - 20 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

data protection
decision making
obligation
right to information
personal data
Law
computer science
EU
responsibility

Keywords

  • Algorithm
  • profiling

Cite this

Moerel, L., & storm, M. (2019). Automated decisions based on profiling: Information, explanation or justification – That is the question! In N. Aggerwal, H. Eidenmuller, L. Enriques, J. Payne, & K. van Zwieten (Eds.), Autonomous systems and the law (pp. 91-98). Verlag C.H. Beck.
Moerel, Lokke ; storm, marijn. / Automated decisions based on profiling : Information, explanation or justification – That is the question!. Autonomous systems and the law. editor / Nikita Aggerwal ; Horst Eidenmuller ; Luca Enriques ; Jennifer Payne ; Kristin van Zwieten. Verlag C.H. Beck, 2019. pp. 91-98
@inbook{8c8788675fa442e894c742b5bb0ce681,
title = "Automated decisions based on profiling: Information, explanation or justification – That is the question!",
abstract = "This article discusses the obligations of controllers with regard to automated decision making; must they provide individuals with information, an explanation or a justification? The answer is: all three. The main underlying rationales of EU data protection laws are preventing information inequality and information injustice. These rationales can only be served if controllers cannot hide behind algorithms for automated individual decision-making. In order to comply with their data protection obligations, controllers must design, develop, and apply algorithms in a transparent, predictable and verifiable manner. Controllers will be accountable for the outcome and will therefore have to be able to ultimately justify the criteria based on which automated decision-making takes place. The current academic debate whether individuals have a limited right to information only or also a right to an explanation, misses the bigger picture, with the risk that companies do the same. The article uses multidisciplinary sources from regulatory studies, law, and computer science to understand the multifaceted implications of algorithm accountability on the protection of personal data and the expectations that individuals may have thereof. The article concludes with an overview of the requirements of white box development.",
keywords = "Algorithm, profiling",
author = "Lokke Moerel and marijn storm",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "20",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-3-8487-5733-6",
pages = "91--98",
editor = "Aggerwal, {Nikita } and Horst Eidenmuller and Enriques, {Luca } and Payne, {Jennifer } and {van Zwieten}, Kristin",
booktitle = "Autonomous systems and the law",
publisher = "Verlag C.H. Beck",
address = "Germany",

}

Moerel, L & storm, M 2019, Automated decisions based on profiling: Information, explanation or justification – That is the question! in N Aggerwal, H Eidenmuller, L Enriques, J Payne & K van Zwieten (eds), Autonomous systems and the law. Verlag C.H. Beck, pp. 91-98.

Automated decisions based on profiling : Information, explanation or justification – That is the question! / Moerel, Lokke; storm, marijn.

Autonomous systems and the law. ed. / Nikita Aggerwal; Horst Eidenmuller; Luca Enriques; Jennifer Payne; Kristin van Zwieten. Verlag C.H. Beck, 2019. p. 91-98.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Automated decisions based on profiling

T2 - Information, explanation or justification – That is the question!

AU - Moerel, Lokke

AU - storm, marijn

PY - 2019/3/20

Y1 - 2019/3/20

N2 - This article discusses the obligations of controllers with regard to automated decision making; must they provide individuals with information, an explanation or a justification? The answer is: all three. The main underlying rationales of EU data protection laws are preventing information inequality and information injustice. These rationales can only be served if controllers cannot hide behind algorithms for automated individual decision-making. In order to comply with their data protection obligations, controllers must design, develop, and apply algorithms in a transparent, predictable and verifiable manner. Controllers will be accountable for the outcome and will therefore have to be able to ultimately justify the criteria based on which automated decision-making takes place. The current academic debate whether individuals have a limited right to information only or also a right to an explanation, misses the bigger picture, with the risk that companies do the same. The article uses multidisciplinary sources from regulatory studies, law, and computer science to understand the multifaceted implications of algorithm accountability on the protection of personal data and the expectations that individuals may have thereof. The article concludes with an overview of the requirements of white box development.

AB - This article discusses the obligations of controllers with regard to automated decision making; must they provide individuals with information, an explanation or a justification? The answer is: all three. The main underlying rationales of EU data protection laws are preventing information inequality and information injustice. These rationales can only be served if controllers cannot hide behind algorithms for automated individual decision-making. In order to comply with their data protection obligations, controllers must design, develop, and apply algorithms in a transparent, predictable and verifiable manner. Controllers will be accountable for the outcome and will therefore have to be able to ultimately justify the criteria based on which automated decision-making takes place. The current academic debate whether individuals have a limited right to information only or also a right to an explanation, misses the bigger picture, with the risk that companies do the same. The article uses multidisciplinary sources from regulatory studies, law, and computer science to understand the multifaceted implications of algorithm accountability on the protection of personal data and the expectations that individuals may have thereof. The article concludes with an overview of the requirements of white box development.

KW - Algorithm

KW - profiling

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-3-8487-5733-6

SP - 91

EP - 98

BT - Autonomous systems and the law

A2 - Aggerwal, Nikita

A2 - Eidenmuller, Horst

A2 - Enriques, Luca

A2 - Payne, Jennifer

A2 - van Zwieten, Kristin

PB - Verlag C.H. Beck

ER -

Moerel L, storm M. Automated decisions based on profiling: Information, explanation or justification – That is the question! In Aggerwal N, Eidenmuller H, Enriques L, Payne J, van Zwieten K, editors, Autonomous systems and the law. Verlag C.H. Beck. 2019. p. 91-98