解释权:欧洲经验及其对巴西的影响

Carlos Affonso, Celina Bottino, Christian Perrone, Eduardo Magrani
{"title":"解释权:欧洲经验及其对巴西的影响","authors":"Carlos Affonso, Celina Bottino, Christian Perrone, Eduardo Magrani","doi":"10.5771/2747-5174-2022-1-66","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The advantages of having automated decisions make it necessary to have mechanisms for coexisting with its opacity. Legal systems in Europe and Brazil sought to create systems of transparency that allow greater control by individuals in terms of access to personal data. Thus, leading to a question whether there is a “right to explanation” is either legal systems. The article analyses how the debate in Europe influenced the discussions in Brazil and uses a comparative methodology to understand how the two legal systems have structured a mechanism based on transversal principles of transparency and the rights of access to information to functionality to establish a “right of explanation”. As a conclusion, the paper notes the limits and potentialities of this right as it was structured, highlighting that its scope is still open for debate, particularly in Brazil, where ongoing discussions, chiefly in Congress, may impact the right itself and its implementation.","PeriodicalId":377128,"journal":{"name":"Morals & Machines","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Right to Explanation:Between the EuropeanExperience and its Influenceon Brazil\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Affonso, Celina Bottino, Christian Perrone, Eduardo Magrani\",\"doi\":\"10.5771/2747-5174-2022-1-66\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The advantages of having automated decisions make it necessary to have mechanisms for coexisting with its opacity. Legal systems in Europe and Brazil sought to create systems of transparency that allow greater control by individuals in terms of access to personal data. Thus, leading to a question whether there is a “right to explanation” is either legal systems. The article analyses how the debate in Europe influenced the discussions in Brazil and uses a comparative methodology to understand how the two legal systems have structured a mechanism based on transversal principles of transparency and the rights of access to information to functionality to establish a “right of explanation”. As a conclusion, the paper notes the limits and potentialities of this right as it was structured, highlighting that its scope is still open for debate, particularly in Brazil, where ongoing discussions, chiefly in Congress, may impact the right itself and its implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":377128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Morals & Machines\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Morals & Machines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-5174-2022-1-66\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Morals & Machines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-5174-2022-1-66","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

拥有自动化决策的优势使得它有必要拥有与其不透明性共存的机制。欧洲和巴西的法律体系试图建立透明的体系,允许个人在获取个人数据方面拥有更大的控制权。因此,导致是否存在“解释权”的问题要么是法律制度。本文分析了欧洲的辩论如何影响了巴西的讨论,并使用比较方法来理解这两个法律体系如何构建了一种基于透明度和获取信息权的横向原则的机制,以确立"解释权"。作为结论,本文指出了这一权利的局限性和潜力,因为它的结构,强调其范围仍然是开放的辩论,特别是在巴西,正在进行的讨论,主要是在国会,可能影响权利本身及其实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Right to Explanation:Between the EuropeanExperience and its Influenceon Brazil
The advantages of having automated decisions make it necessary to have mechanisms for coexisting with its opacity. Legal systems in Europe and Brazil sought to create systems of transparency that allow greater control by individuals in terms of access to personal data. Thus, leading to a question whether there is a “right to explanation” is either legal systems. The article analyses how the debate in Europe influenced the discussions in Brazil and uses a comparative methodology to understand how the two legal systems have structured a mechanism based on transversal principles of transparency and the rights of access to information to functionality to establish a “right of explanation”. As a conclusion, the paper notes the limits and potentialities of this right as it was structured, highlighting that its scope is still open for debate, particularly in Brazil, where ongoing discussions, chiefly in Congress, may impact the right itself and its implementation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信