Law, technology and humans最新文献

筛选

英文中文

The Human in the Feedback Loop: Predictive Analytics in Refugee Status Determination 反馈回路中的人：难民身份确定中的预测分析

Law, technology and humans Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI: 10.5204/lthj.3635

Niamh Kinchin

{"title":"The Human in the Feedback Loop: Predictive Analytics in Refugee Status Determination","authors":"Niamh Kinchin","doi":"10.5204/lthj.3635","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3635","url":null,"abstract":"Predictive analytics in law describes AI systems that can predict the outcome of legal cases via computational legal reasoning. Predictive analytics in refugee status determination (RSD) has been cautiously employed. However, active research into model development holds significant potential for scalable application. Predictive analytics, traditionally built upon inductive decision-making processes like supervised machine learning and decision trees, risks compromising the abductive reasoning processes that RSD relies upon. Even if models are built to effectively navigate this hurdle, problems with data remain. Insufficient data is an intractable element of forced displacement, which means inaccuracies or uncertainty. The prospective nature of a well-founded fear undermines how algorithms are traditionally trained from historical data. The inability of predictive analytics to measure subjective fear may mean that RSD credibility assessments are pushed to ‘pseudo-scientific’ tools such as lie detectors and emotion recognition technology. Without the ability to remove subjectivity, the training data will capture subjective fear from previous claimants that will inform other case outcomes. Case characteristics that describe an individual case within a dataset and upon which the algorithm is trained must be carefully chosen in consultation with legal experts. Without considering how case characteristics reflect legal standards, they risk subverting hard-fought and won international legal protections. Finally, commonly acknowledged issues of algorithmic bias and harmful feedback loops must not be forgotten. This conversation is crucial for ensuring that the likely implementation of predictive analytics in RSD upholds fairness and established legal standards and, crucially, does not forget the human at its heart.","PeriodicalId":489320,"journal":{"name":"Law, technology and humans","volume":"6 3","pages":"23-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://lthj.qut.edu.au/article/download/3635/1541","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147906023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Contact-Tracing Technologies and the Problem of Trust—Framing a Right of Social Dialogue for an Impact Assessment Process in Pandemic Times 接触者追踪技术和信任问题——为大流行时期的影响评估过程构建社会对话权

Law, technology and humans Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI: 10.5204/lthj.2829

Rachelle Bosua, Damian Clifford, Megan Richardson

{"title":"Contact-Tracing Technologies and the Problem of Trust—Framing a Right of Social Dialogue for an Impact Assessment Process in Pandemic Times","authors":"Rachelle Bosua, Damian Clifford, Megan Richardson","doi":"10.5204/lthj.2829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2829","url":null,"abstract":"While technologies offer potentially powerful tools to help address complex social challenges, experience shows that they may fail to meet expectations and may also raise challenges of their own, including for privacy and other data rights. To what extent can these difficulties be ascribed to a lack of public trust undermining the technologies’ effectiveness and disputing their legitimacy? The Australian and Dutch pandemic contact-tracing apps considered in this article suggest part of an answer to this question. As our case studies show, the greater efforts made by the Dutch Government to address a range of rights and provide for wide consultation in the CoronaMelder app’s various impact assessments paid off in terms of a better-designed app that was more broadly conversant with human rights than its Australian COVIDSafe counterpart, and was also more trusted—even if these benefits were still marginal compared to manual contact-tracking, especially in already marginalised communities. We argue that the Dutch experience should now be taken further to frame a right of social dialogue allowing data rights subjects to participate fully in the impact assessment process. We hope (and expect) this would result in better decision-making and improved public trust in ‘truly trustworthy’ technologies developed and deployed in response to a pandemic. However, ultimately, our more basic argument is that rights, premised on dignity and liberty, are of value and should be respected, including—indeed especially—in pandemic times.","PeriodicalId":489320,"journal":{"name":"Law, technology and humans","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135771057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0