人工智能时代的欧洲公民得分

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Nathan Genicot
{"title":"人工智能时代的欧洲公民得分","authors":"Nathan Genicot","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Social scoring is one of the AI practices banned by the AI Act. This ban is explicitly inspired by China, which in 2014 announced its intention to set up a large-scale government project – the Social Credit System – aiming to rate every Chinese citizen according to their good behaviour, using digital technologies and AI. But in Europe, individuals are also scored by public and private bodies in a variety of contexts, such as assessing creditworthiness, monitoring employee productivity, detecting social fraud or terrorist risks, and so on. However, the AI Act does not intend to prohibit these types of scoring, as they would qualify as “high-risk AI systems”, which are authorised while subject to various requirements. One might therefore think that the ban on social scoring will have no practical effect on the scoring practices already in use in Europe, and that it is merely a vague safeguard in case an authoritarian power is tempted to set up such a system on European territory. Contrary to this view, this article argues that the ban has been drafted in a way that is flexible and therefore likely to make it a useful tool, similar and complementary to Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, to protect individuals against certain forms of disproportionate use of AI-based scoring.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"57 ","pages":"Article 106130"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoring the European citizen in the AI era\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Genicot\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Social scoring is one of the AI practices banned by the AI Act. This ban is explicitly inspired by China, which in 2014 announced its intention to set up a large-scale government project – the Social Credit System – aiming to rate every Chinese citizen according to their good behaviour, using digital technologies and AI. But in Europe, individuals are also scored by public and private bodies in a variety of contexts, such as assessing creditworthiness, monitoring employee productivity, detecting social fraud or terrorist risks, and so on. However, the AI Act does not intend to prohibit these types of scoring, as they would qualify as “high-risk AI systems”, which are authorised while subject to various requirements. One might therefore think that the ban on social scoring will have no practical effect on the scoring practices already in use in Europe, and that it is merely a vague safeguard in case an authoritarian power is tempted to set up such a system on European territory. Contrary to this view, this article argues that the ban has been drafted in a way that is flexible and therefore likely to make it a useful tool, similar and complementary to Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, to protect individuals against certain forms of disproportionate use of AI-based scoring.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":\"57 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-14\",\"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/S2212473X25000033\",\"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/S2212473X25000033","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

社会评分是《人工智能法》禁止的人工智能实践之一。这一禁令明确受到中国的启发,中国在 2014 年宣布打算建立一个大规模的政府项目--社会信用体系,旨在利用数字技术和人工智能,根据每个中国公民的良好行为对其进行评分。但在欧洲,公共和私人机构也会在各种情况下对个人进行评分,如评估信用度、监控员工生产力、检测社会欺诈或恐怖主义风险等。然而,《人工智能法》并不打算禁止这些类型的评分,因为它们属于 "高风险人工智能系统",在符合各种要求的前提下获得授权。因此,人们可能会认为,禁止社会评分不会对欧洲已在使用的评分做法产生任何实际影响,它只是一种模糊的保障措施,以防专制政权试图在欧洲领土上建立此类系统。与这一观点相反,本文认为,禁令的起草方式是灵活的,因此有可能使其成为与《一般数据保护条例》第 22 条类似和互补的有用工具,以保护个人免受某些形式的过度使用人工智能计分的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scoring the European citizen in the AI era
Social scoring is one of the AI practices banned by the AI Act. This ban is explicitly inspired by China, which in 2014 announced its intention to set up a large-scale government project – the Social Credit System – aiming to rate every Chinese citizen according to their good behaviour, using digital technologies and AI. But in Europe, individuals are also scored by public and private bodies in a variety of contexts, such as assessing creditworthiness, monitoring employee productivity, detecting social fraud or terrorist risks, and so on. However, the AI Act does not intend to prohibit these types of scoring, as they would qualify as “high-risk AI systems”, which are authorised while subject to various requirements. One might therefore think that the ban on social scoring will have no practical effect on the scoring practices already in use in Europe, and that it is merely a vague safeguard in case an authoritarian power is tempted to set up such a system on European territory. Contrary to this view, this article argues that the ban has been drafted in a way that is flexible and therefore likely to make it a useful tool, similar and complementary to Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, to protect individuals against certain forms of disproportionate use of AI-based scoring.
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