技术真的具有包容性吗?国家运行的算法程序的一些建议

Q2 Social Sciences
Global Jurist Pub Date : 2020-03-13 DOI:10.1515/gj-2019-0065
E. Bertolini
{"title":"技术真的具有包容性吗?国家运行的算法程序的一些建议","authors":"E. Bertolini","doi":"10.1515/gj-2019-0065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article aims at challenging the narrative that technology is inclusive with respect to states run algorithmic programmes and discusses that states resorting more frequently to technology, in particular to algorithm, are altering the traditional paradigm of the relationship between the state and the individual. Algorithm is indeed progressively twisting the traditional form of state toward a more exclusive, accountable-free and controlling form of state. The dichotomy inclusiveness/exclusiveness is at the centre of the analysis, because the state justifies resorting to algorithm by claiming that it is the suitable tool to address state’s deficiencies and making the state more efficient and effective. Hence, the state is abdicating the exercise of some important functions to the algorithm. The analysis of the most relevant algorithmic programmes implemented by states so far in the judiciary and in the welfare sector proves that the algorithm is perpetuating social bias and discrimination, thus raising significant criticalities in terms of infringements of the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":34941,"journal":{"name":"Global Jurist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/gj-2019-0065","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Technology Really Inclusive? Some Suggestions from States Run Algorithmic Programmes\",\"authors\":\"E. Bertolini\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/gj-2019-0065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The article aims at challenging the narrative that technology is inclusive with respect to states run algorithmic programmes and discusses that states resorting more frequently to technology, in particular to algorithm, are altering the traditional paradigm of the relationship between the state and the individual. Algorithm is indeed progressively twisting the traditional form of state toward a more exclusive, accountable-free and controlling form of state. The dichotomy inclusiveness/exclusiveness is at the centre of the analysis, because the state justifies resorting to algorithm by claiming that it is the suitable tool to address state’s deficiencies and making the state more efficient and effective. Hence, the state is abdicating the exercise of some important functions to the algorithm. The analysis of the most relevant algorithmic programmes implemented by states so far in the judiciary and in the welfare sector proves that the algorithm is perpetuating social bias and discrimination, thus raising significant criticalities in terms of infringements of the rule of law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34941,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Jurist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/gj-2019-0065\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Jurist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2019-0065\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Jurist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2019-0065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文旨在挑战技术在国家运行算法程序方面具有包容性的叙述,并讨论了更频繁地诉诸技术,特别是算法的国家正在改变国家与个人之间关系的传统范式。算法确实正在逐步扭曲传统的国家形式,使之成为一种更排外、更自由、更可控的国家形式。包容性/排他性的二分法是分析的中心,因为国家通过声称算法是解决国家缺陷并使国家更高效和有效的合适工具来证明诉诸算法是合理的。因此,国家放弃了一些重要功能的执行。对各国迄今在司法部门和福利部门实施的最相关算法方案的分析证明,该算法正在使社会偏见和歧视永久化,从而在违反法治方面提出了重大批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Technology Really Inclusive? Some Suggestions from States Run Algorithmic Programmes
Abstract The article aims at challenging the narrative that technology is inclusive with respect to states run algorithmic programmes and discusses that states resorting more frequently to technology, in particular to algorithm, are altering the traditional paradigm of the relationship between the state and the individual. Algorithm is indeed progressively twisting the traditional form of state toward a more exclusive, accountable-free and controlling form of state. The dichotomy inclusiveness/exclusiveness is at the centre of the analysis, because the state justifies resorting to algorithm by claiming that it is the suitable tool to address state’s deficiencies and making the state more efficient and effective. Hence, the state is abdicating the exercise of some important functions to the algorithm. The analysis of the most relevant algorithmic programmes implemented by states so far in the judiciary and in the welfare sector proves that the algorithm is perpetuating social bias and discrimination, thus raising significant criticalities in terms of infringements of the rule of 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
Global Jurist
Global Jurist Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Global Jurist offers a forum for scholarly cyber-debate on issues of comparative law, law and economics, international law, law and society, and legal anthropology. Edited by an international board of leading comparative law scholars from all the continents, Global Jurist is mindful of globalization and respectful of cultural differences. We will develop a truly international community of legal scholars where linguistic and cultural barriers are overcome and legal issues are finally discussed outside of the narrow limits imposed by positivism, parochialism, ethnocentrism, imperialism and chauvinism in the law. Submission is welcome from all over the world and particularly encouraged from the Global South.
×
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