把辩证法融入机器:通过设计更深入地理解竞争性来防止自动决策

Q2 Social Sciences
Global Jurist Pub Date : 2020-03-20 DOI:10.1515/gj-2020-0003
Claudio Sarra
{"title":"把辩证法融入机器:通过设计更深入地理解竞争性来防止自动决策","authors":"Claudio Sarra","doi":"10.1515/gj-2020-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper endorses the idea that the right to contest provided for by art. 22, § 3 GDPR, actually is the apex of a progressive set of tools the data subject has at his disposal to cope with automatic decisions and it should work as an architectural principle to create contestable systems. But in order to achieve that important role, it cannot be reduce to the right of human intervention, also provided for by art.22, § 3, nor to a generic opposition to the outcome of the automatic processing. Thus, drawing from a thorough analysis of the relationships among the rights included in art. 22, § 3 GDPR as well as from the juridical proper meaning of “contestatio”, it is concluded that the right to contest has its own proper nature as a hybrid substantial-processual right that is able to give concrete shape to all the other rights indicated in art. 22, § 3, included the much discussed right to explanation.","PeriodicalId":34941,"journal":{"name":"Global Jurist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/gj-2020-0003","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Put Dialectics into the Machine: Protection against Automatic-decision-making through a Deeper Understanding of Contestability by Design\",\"authors\":\"Claudio Sarra\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/gj-2020-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper endorses the idea that the right to contest provided for by art. 22, § 3 GDPR, actually is the apex of a progressive set of tools the data subject has at his disposal to cope with automatic decisions and it should work as an architectural principle to create contestable systems. But in order to achieve that important role, it cannot be reduce to the right of human intervention, also provided for by art.22, § 3, nor to a generic opposition to the outcome of the automatic processing. Thus, drawing from a thorough analysis of the relationships among the rights included in art. 22, § 3 GDPR as well as from the juridical proper meaning of “contestatio”, it is concluded that the right to contest has its own proper nature as a hybrid substantial-processual right that is able to give concrete shape to all the other rights indicated in art. 22, § 3, included the much discussed right to explanation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34941,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Jurist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/gj-2020-0003\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Jurist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2020-0003\",\"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-2020-0003","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: 8

摘要

摘要:本文赞同《美术法》规定的竞赛权的观点。22,§3 GDPR,实际上是数据主体可以处理自动决策的一套先进工具的顶点,它应该作为一个架构原则来创建可争议的系统。但是,为了实现这一重要作用,它不能被简化为人类干预的权利,这也是艺术所提供的。22,§3,也不是对自动处理结果的一般反对。因此,通过对艺术所包含的权利之间关系的深入分析。根据《通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)第22条第3款以及“竞赛”的司法正当含义,可以得出结论,竞赛权具有其本身作为实质-程序混合权利的正当性质,能够为art中所述的所有其他权利赋予具体形式。第22条第3款包括了讨论得很多的解释权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Put Dialectics into the Machine: Protection against Automatic-decision-making through a Deeper Understanding of Contestability by Design
Abstract This paper endorses the idea that the right to contest provided for by art. 22, § 3 GDPR, actually is the apex of a progressive set of tools the data subject has at his disposal to cope with automatic decisions and it should work as an architectural principle to create contestable systems. But in order to achieve that important role, it cannot be reduce to the right of human intervention, also provided for by art.22, § 3, nor to a generic opposition to the outcome of the automatic processing. Thus, drawing from a thorough analysis of the relationships among the rights included in art. 22, § 3 GDPR as well as from the juridical proper meaning of “contestatio”, it is concluded that the right to contest has its own proper nature as a hybrid substantial-processual right that is able to give concrete shape to all the other rights indicated in art. 22, § 3, included the much discussed right to explanation.
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