{"title":"Is Technology Really Inclusive? Some Suggestions from States Run Algorithmic Programmes","authors":"E. Bertolini","doi":"10.1515/gj-2019-0065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article aims at challenging the narrative that technology is inclusive with respect to states run algorithmic programmes and discusses that states resorting more frequently to technology, in particular to algorithm, are altering the traditional paradigm of the relationship between the state and the individual. Algorithm is indeed progressively twisting the traditional form of state toward a more exclusive, accountable-free and controlling form of state. The dichotomy inclusiveness/exclusiveness is at the centre of the analysis, because the state justifies resorting to algorithm by claiming that it is the suitable tool to address state’s deficiencies and making the state more efficient and effective. Hence, the state is abdicating the exercise of some important functions to the algorithm. The analysis of the most relevant algorithmic programmes implemented by states so far in the judiciary and in the welfare sector proves that the algorithm is perpetuating social bias and discrimination, thus raising significant criticalities in terms of infringements of the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":34941,"journal":{"name":"Global Jurist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/gj-2019-0065","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Jurist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2019-0065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract The article aims at challenging the narrative that technology is inclusive with respect to states run algorithmic programmes and discusses that states resorting more frequently to technology, in particular to algorithm, are altering the traditional paradigm of the relationship between the state and the individual. Algorithm is indeed progressively twisting the traditional form of state toward a more exclusive, accountable-free and controlling form of state. The dichotomy inclusiveness/exclusiveness is at the centre of the analysis, because the state justifies resorting to algorithm by claiming that it is the suitable tool to address state’s deficiencies and making the state more efficient and effective. Hence, the state is abdicating the exercise of some important functions to the algorithm. The analysis of the most relevant algorithmic programmes implemented by states so far in the judiciary and in the welfare sector proves that the algorithm is perpetuating social bias and discrimination, thus raising significant criticalities in terms of infringements of the rule of law.
期刊介绍:
Global Jurist offers a forum for scholarly cyber-debate on issues of comparative law, law and economics, international law, law and society, and legal anthropology. Edited by an international board of leading comparative law scholars from all the continents, Global Jurist is mindful of globalization and respectful of cultural differences. We will develop a truly international community of legal scholars where linguistic and cultural barriers are overcome and legal issues are finally discussed outside of the narrow limits imposed by positivism, parochialism, ethnocentrism, imperialism and chauvinism in the law. Submission is welcome from all over the world and particularly encouraged from the Global South.