为公平而设计的歧视及其法律框架

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Holly Hoch , Corinna Hertweck , Michele Loi , Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux
{"title":"为公平而设计的歧视及其法律框架","authors":"Holly Hoch ,&nbsp;Corinna Hertweck ,&nbsp;Michele Loi ,&nbsp;Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As algorithms are increasingly enlisted to make critical determinations about human actors, the more frequently we see these algorithms appear in sensational headlines crying foul on discrimination. There is broad consensus among computer scientists working on this issue that such discrimination can be reduced by intentionally collecting and consciously using sensitive information<span> about demographic features like sex, gender, race, religion etc. Companies implementing such algorithms might, however, be wary of allowing algorithms access to such data as they fear legal repercussions, as the promoted standard has been to omit protected attributes, otherwise dubbed “fairness through unawareness”. This paper asks whether such wariness is justified in light of EU data protection and anti-discrimination laws. In order to answer this question, we introduce a specific case and analyze how EU law might apply when an algorithm accesses sensitive information to make fairer predictions. We review whether such measures constitute discrimination, and for who, arriving at different conclusions based on how we define the harm of discrimination and the groups we compare. Finding that several legal claims could arise regarding the use of sensitive information, we ultimately conclude that the proffered fairness measures would be considered a positive (or affirmative) action under EU law. As such, the appropriate use of sensitive information in order to increase the fairness of an algorithm is a positive action, and not per se prohibited by EU law.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrimination for the sake of fairness by design and its legal framework\",\"authors\":\"Holly Hoch ,&nbsp;Corinna Hertweck ,&nbsp;Michele Loi ,&nbsp;Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As algorithms are increasingly enlisted to make critical determinations about human actors, the more frequently we see these algorithms appear in sensational headlines crying foul on discrimination. There is broad consensus among computer scientists working on this issue that such discrimination can be reduced by intentionally collecting and consciously using sensitive information<span> about demographic features like sex, gender, race, religion etc. Companies implementing such algorithms might, however, be wary of allowing algorithms access to such data as they fear legal repercussions, as the promoted standard has been to omit protected attributes, otherwise dubbed “fairness through unawareness”. This paper asks whether such wariness is justified in light of EU data protection and anti-discrimination laws. In order to answer this question, we introduce a specific case and analyze how EU law might apply when an algorithm accesses sensitive information to make fairer predictions. We review whether such measures constitute discrimination, and for who, arriving at different conclusions based on how we define the harm of discrimination and the groups we compare. Finding that several legal claims could arise regarding the use of sensitive information, we ultimately conclude that the proffered fairness measures would be considered a positive (or affirmative) action under EU law. As such, the appropriate use of sensitive information in order to increase the fairness of an algorithm is a positive action, and not per se prohibited by EU law.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923001267\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923001267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着越来越多的算法被用来对人类行为者做出关键判断,我们也越发频繁地看到这些算法出现在耸人听闻的头条新闻中,大肆宣扬歧视。研究这一问题的计算机科学家们普遍认为,可以通过有意识地收集和使用有关性、性别、种族、宗教等人口特征的敏感信息来减少这种歧视。然而,实施此类算法的公司可能会对允许算法访问此类数据持谨慎态度,因为他们担心会受到法律影响,因为推广的标准是省略受保护的属性,也就是所谓的 "因不知而公平"。本文将从欧盟数据保护和反歧视法的角度来探讨这种担心是否合理。为了回答这个问题,我们介绍了一个具体案例,并分析了当算法获取敏感信息以做出更公平的预测时,欧盟法律可能如何适用。我们审查了此类措施是否构成歧视,以及对谁构成歧视,并根据歧视危害的定义和比较的群体得出了不同的结论。我们发现,在使用敏感信息方面可能会出现几种法律诉求,但我们最终得出结论,根据欧盟法律,提出的公平措施将被视为一种积极(或肯定)行动。因此,适当使用敏感信息以提高算法的公平性是一种积极的行为,其本身并不为欧盟法律所禁止。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discrimination for the sake of fairness by design and its legal framework

As algorithms are increasingly enlisted to make critical determinations about human actors, the more frequently we see these algorithms appear in sensational headlines crying foul on discrimination. There is broad consensus among computer scientists working on this issue that such discrimination can be reduced by intentionally collecting and consciously using sensitive information about demographic features like sex, gender, race, religion etc. Companies implementing such algorithms might, however, be wary of allowing algorithms access to such data as they fear legal repercussions, as the promoted standard has been to omit protected attributes, otherwise dubbed “fairness through unawareness”. This paper asks whether such wariness is justified in light of EU data protection and anti-discrimination laws. In order to answer this question, we introduce a specific case and analyze how EU law might apply when an algorithm accesses sensitive information to make fairer predictions. We review whether such measures constitute discrimination, and for who, arriving at different conclusions based on how we define the harm of discrimination and the groups we compare. Finding that several legal claims could arise regarding the use of sensitive information, we ultimately conclude that the proffered fairness measures would be considered a positive (or affirmative) action under EU law. As such, the appropriate use of sensitive information in order to increase the fairness of an algorithm is a positive action, and not per se prohibited by EU law.

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
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
×
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