证明政府决策中的算法歧视

Q3 Social Sciences
Jack Maxwell, Joe Tomlinson
{"title":"证明政府决策中的算法歧视","authors":"Jack Maxwell, Joe Tomlinson","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2020.1833604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Public bodies in the United Kingdom are increasingly using algorithms and big data to make decisions. While there is growing awareness of the risks of algorithmic discrimination, it can be very difficult to establish that a specific algorithm is in fact discriminatory. This raises the question of how courts should allocate the burden of testing and proving whether a government algorithm is discriminatory, as between the government and the person affected. In R (Bridges) v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058, the England and Wales Court of Appeal found that public bodies must take positive steps to identify and address risks of algorithmic discrimination. This note explores the decision in Bridges and its implications for algorithmic decision-making in government. It suggests that Bridges, alongside recent decisions in Canada and the Netherlands, forms part of a broader trend: the courts are placing the burden of testing and reviewing potentially discriminatory algorithms on government, rather than the general public.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"352 - 360"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2020.1833604","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proving algorithmic discrimination in government decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Jack Maxwell, Joe Tomlinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2020.1833604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Public bodies in the United Kingdom are increasingly using algorithms and big data to make decisions. While there is growing awareness of the risks of algorithmic discrimination, it can be very difficult to establish that a specific algorithm is in fact discriminatory. This raises the question of how courts should allocate the burden of testing and proving whether a government algorithm is discriminatory, as between the government and the person affected. In R (Bridges) v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058, the England and Wales Court of Appeal found that public bodies must take positive steps to identify and address risks of algorithmic discrimination. This note explores the decision in Bridges and its implications for algorithmic decision-making in government. It suggests that Bridges, alongside recent decisions in Canada and the Netherlands, forms part of a broader trend: the courts are placing the burden of testing and reviewing potentially discriminatory algorithms on government, rather than the general public.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"352 - 360\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2020.1833604\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2020.1833604\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2020.1833604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要英国的公共机构越来越多地使用算法和大数据进行决策。虽然人们越来越意识到算法歧视的风险,但很难确定特定的算法实际上是歧视性的。这就提出了一个问题,即法院应该如何分配测试和证明政府算法是否具有歧视性的负担,比如在政府和受影响的人之间。在R(Bridges)诉南威尔士警察【2020】EWCA Civ 1058一案中,英格兰和威尔士上诉法院认定,公共机构必须采取积极措施,识别和解决算法歧视的风险。本文探讨了Bridges中的决策及其对政府算法决策的影响。这表明,Bridges与加拿大和荷兰最近的裁决一起,构成了一个更广泛趋势的一部分:法院将测试和审查潜在歧视性算法的负担交给了政府,而不是普通公众。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Proving algorithmic discrimination in government decision-making
ABSTRACT Public bodies in the United Kingdom are increasingly using algorithms and big data to make decisions. While there is growing awareness of the risks of algorithmic discrimination, it can be very difficult to establish that a specific algorithm is in fact discriminatory. This raises the question of how courts should allocate the burden of testing and proving whether a government algorithm is discriminatory, as between the government and the person affected. In R (Bridges) v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058, the England and Wales Court of Appeal found that public bodies must take positive steps to identify and address risks of algorithmic discrimination. This note explores the decision in Bridges and its implications for algorithmic decision-making in government. It suggests that Bridges, alongside recent decisions in Canada and the Netherlands, forms part of a broader trend: the courts are placing the burden of testing and reviewing potentially discriminatory algorithms on government, rather than the general public.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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