Search

This research investigates the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems for profiling and decision-making, and the consequences that it poses to rights and freedoms of individuals. In particular, the research considers that automated decision-making systems (ADMs) are opaque, can be biased, and their logic is correlation-based. For these reasons, ADMs do not take decisions as human beings do. Against this background, the risks for the rights of individuals combined with the demand for transparency of algorithms have created a debate on the need for a new 'right to explanation'. Assuming that, except in cases provided for by law, a decision made by a human does not entitle to a right to explanation, the question has been raised as to whether – if the decision is made by an algorithm – it is necessary to configure a right to explanation for the decision-subject. Therefore, the research addresses a right to explanation of automated decision-making, examining the relation between today’s technology and legal concepts of explanation, reasoning, and transparency. In particular, it focuses on the existence and scope of the right to explanation, considering legal and technical issues surrounding the use of ADMs. The research analyses the use of AI and the problems arising from it from a legal perspective, studying the EU legal framework – especially in the data protection field. In this context, a part of the research is focused on transparency requirements under the GDPR (namely, Articles 13–15, 22, as well as Recital 71). The research aims to outline an interpretative framework of such a right and make recommendations about its development, aiming to provide guidelines for an adequate explanation of automated decisions. Hence, the thesis analyses what an explanation might consist of, and the benefits of explainable AI – examined from legal and technical perspectives.

The chapters of the thesis focus on a limited variety of selected themes in EU privacy and data protection law. Chapter 1 sets out the general introduction on the research topic. Chapter 2 touches upon the methodology used in the research. Chapter 3 conceptualises the basic notions from a legal standpoint. Chapter 4 examines the current regulatory regime applicable to digital health technologies, healthcare emergencies, privacy, and data protection. Chapter 5 provides case studies on the application deployed in the Covid-19 scenario, from the perspective of privacy and data protection. Chapter 6 addresses the post-Covid European regulatory initiatives on the subject matter, and its potential effects on privacy and data protection. Chapter 7 is the outcome of a six-month internship with a company in Italy and focuses on the protection of fundamental rights through common standardisation and certification, demonstrating that such standards can serve as supporting tools to guarantee the right to privacy and data protection in digital health technologies. The thesis concludes with the observation that finding and transposing European privacy and data protection standards into scenarios, such as public healthcare emergencies where digital health technologies are deployed, requires rapid coordination between the European Data Protection Authorities and the Member States guarantee that individual privacy and data protection rights are ensured.

This article reports the findings of AI4People, a year-long initiative designed to lay the foundations for a “Good AI Society”. We introduce the core opportunities and risks of AI for society; present a synthesis of five ethical principles that should undergird its development and adoption; and offer 20 concrete recommendations – to assess, to develop, to incentivise, and to support good AI – which in some cases may be undertaken directly by national or supranational policy makers, while in others may be led by other stakeholders. If adopted, these recommendations would serve as a firm foundation for the establishment of a Good AI Society.

The subjects of this dissertation are distributed consensus systems (DCS). These systems gained prominence with the implementation of cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. This work aims at understanding the drivers and motives behind the adoption of this class of technologies, and to – consequently – evaluate the social and normative implications of blockchains and distributed ledgers. To do so, a phenomenological account of the field of distributed consensus systems is offered, then the core claims for the adoption of systems are taken into consideration. Accordingly, the relevance of these technologies on trust and governance is examined. It will be argued that the effects on these two elements do not justify the adoption of distributed consensus systems satisfactorily. Against this backdrop, it will be held that blockchains and similar technologies are being adopted because they are regarded as having a valid claim to authority as specified by Max Weber, i.e., herrschaft. Consequently, it will be discussed whether current implementations fall – and to what extent – within the legitimate types of traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal authority. The conclusion is that the conceptualization developed by Weber does not capture the core ideas that appear to establish the belief in the legitimacy of distributed consensus systems. Therefore, this dissertation describes the herrschaft of systems such as blockchains by conceptualizing a computational extension of the pure type of rational-legal authority, qualified as algorithmic authority. The foundational elements of algorithmic authority are then discussed. Particular attention is focused on the idea of normativity cultivated in systems of algorithmic rules as well as the concept of decentralization. Practical suggestions conclude the following dissertation.

This article reports the findings of AI4People, an Atomium—EISMD initiative designed to lay the foundations for a "Good AI Society". We introduce the core opportunities and risks of AI for society; present a synthesis of five ethical principles that should undergird its development and adoption; and offer 20 concrete recommendations—to assess, to develop, to incentivise, and to support good AI—which in some cases may be undertaken directly by national or supranational policy makers, while in others may be led by other stakeholders. If adopted, these recommendations would serve as a firm foundation for the establishment of a Good AI Society.

Computer science, robotics and AI have all developed rapidly in recent years, bringing profound changes to all aspects of human life. However, the emergence and proliferation of these new technologies has not occurred within the bounds of traditional organizational, ethical and regulatory systems. We have reached an inflection point, where we need to pursue new business models and normative frameworks to underpin these fast-developing technologies. This introductory chapter briefly maps the evolution of these different technologies and argues for a new, more forward-oriented approach to the business and normative challenges that are created. The discussion ends with a review of the chapters that comprise this volume.

The inspiring idea of this workshop series, Artificial Intelligence Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems (AICOL), is to develop models of legal knowledge concerning organization, structure, and content in order to promote mutual understanding and communication between different systems and cultures. Complexity and complex systems describe recent developments in AI and law, legal theory, argumentation, the Semantic Web, and multi-agent systems. Multisystem and multilingual ontologies provide an important opportunity to integrate different trends of research in AI and law, including comparative legal studies. Complexity theory, graph theory, game theory, and any other contributions from the mathematical disciplines can help both to formalize the dynamics of legal systems and to capture relations among norms. Cognitive science can help the modeling of legal ontology by taking into account not only the formal features of law but also social behaviour, psychology, and cultural factors. This book is thus meant to support scholars in different areas of science in sharing knowledge and methodological approaches. This volume collects the contributions to the workshop's third edition, which took place as part of the 25th IVR congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, held in Frankfurt, Germany, in August 2011. This volume comprises six main parts devoted to the each of the six topics addressed in the workshop, namely: models for the legal system ethics and the regulation of ICT, legal knowledge management, legal information for open access, software agent systems in the legal domain, as well as legal language and legal ontology.

The inspiring idea of this workshop series, Artificial Intelligence Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems (AICOL), is to develop models of legal knowledge, concerning organization, structure and content, in order to promote mutual understanding and communication between different systems and cultures. Complexity and complex systems describe recent developments in AI and law, legal theory, argumentation, the Semantic Web, and multi-agent systems. The aim of the AICOL workshops is thus to offer effective support for the exchange of knowledge and methodological approaches between scholars from different scientific fields, by highlighting their similarities and differences. The comparison of multiple formal approaches to the law (such as logical models, cognitive theories, argumentation frameworks, graph theory, game theory), as well as opposite perspectives like internal and the external viewpoints, this volume stresses possible convergences, as, for instance, are possible in the realms of conceptual structures, argumentation schemes, emergent behaviors, learning evolution, adaptation, and simulation.