Artificial Intelligence ante portas: Reactions of Law
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Need for a Comprehensive Legal Framework
2.1. Legitimacy for Regulatory Intervention
2.2. Implementation of a Co-Regulatory Approach
2.3. Identification of Substantive AI Principles
2.3.1. Non-Discrimination
2.3.2. Transparency and Accountability
- Article 5 of the EU Regulation 2019/1150 on the Promotion of Fairness and Transparency for the Commercial Users of Online Intermediary Services [37] requires the offerors of intermediary services to make transparent the ranking of the main parameters of the search, the reasons for the relative impact of such parameters, and the potential possibility to influence the ranking by paying a certain sum of money. However, the providers do not have to disclose the algorithms of the programs.
- Many transparency requirements are usually contained in data protection laws, particularly in the EU Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679; a person can only give the consent to the data processing if its scope and purpose is known (see below Section 2.3.3 and [24] (nos. 11, 13 and 15)).
- The transparency requirement is now also foreseen in Art. 13 of the new EU proposal for an AI Regulation (see below Section 3.2.2).
2.3.3. Data Protection
3. Assessment of Regulatory Initiatives in Europe
3.1. Council of Europe: Project for an AI Legal Instrument
3.1.1. Analysis of the Normative Environment
- Liberty and security; fair trials; no punishment without law; effective remedy (Articles 5, 6, 7, 13 ECHR);
- Private and family life; physical, psycho-social and moral integrity (Article 8 ECHR);
- Freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association (Articles 10, 11 ECHR);
- Equality and non-discrimination (Article 14 ECHR, Protocol 12);
- Social and economic rights (Articles 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13 and 20 of the European Social Charter).
3.1.2. Discussions about the Form of the Legal Instrument
- Human dignity;
- Prevention of harm to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law;
- Human freedom and human autonomy;
- Non-discrimination, gender equality, fairness, and diversity;
- Principles of transparency and explainability of AI systems;
- Data protection and the right to privacy;
- Accountability and responsibility;
- Democracy;
- Rule of law.
3.2. European Union: Proposal for a New AI Regulation
3.2.1. Background of the Regulation
- Ensure that AI systems placed on the Internal Market and used are safe and respect existing law on fundamental rights and Union values;
- Ensure legal certainty to facilitate investment and innovation in AI;
- Enhance governance and effective enforcement of existing law on fundamental rights and safety requirements applicable to AI systems;
- Facilitate the development of a single market for lawful, safe, and trustworthy AI applications and prevent market fragmentation.
3.2.2. Contents of the Regulation
3.2.3. Assessment of the Regulation
4. Outlook
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Weber, R.H. Socio-ethical values and legal rules on automated platforms: The quest for a symbiotic relationship. CLSR 2020, 36, 105380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, R.H. Internet Governance at the Point of No Return; EIZ Publishing: Zurich, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, R.H. Shaping Internet Governance: Regulatory Challenges; Schulthess: Zurich, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, June 2005. Available online: www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Weber, R.H. Legal foundations of multistakeholder decision-making. Z. Für Schweiz. Recht 2016, 135, 247–267. [Google Scholar]
- Gasser, U.; Budish, R.; West, S.M. Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies; Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publications: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weber, R.H. Realizing a New Global Cyberspace Framework. Normative Foundations and Guiding Principles; Schulthess: Zurich, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, R.H. Sectoral Self-Regulation as Viable Tool. In Law and Economics of Regulation; Klaus, M., Tor, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, R.H. Overcoming the Hard Law/Soft Law Dichotomy in Times of (Financial) Crises. J. Gov. Regul. 2012, 1, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guzman, A.T.; Meyer, T.L. International Soft Law. J. Leg. Anal. 2010, 2, 171–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, T. Soft Law as Delegation. Int. Law J. 2008, 32, 888–942. [Google Scholar]
- Tambini, D.; Leonardi, D.; Marsden, C. Codifying Cyberspace: Communications Self-Regulation in the Age of Internet Convergence; Routledge: London, England, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Gersen, J.E.; Posner, E.A. Soft Law: Lessons from Congressional Practice. Stan. L. Rev. 2008, 61, 573–628. [Google Scholar]
- Senn, M. Non-State Regulatory Regimes, Understanding Institutional Transformation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Marsden, C.T. Internet Co-Regulation and Constitutionalism: Towards a More Nuanced View, SSRN 2011. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1973328 (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Marsden, C.T.; Meyer, T.; Brown, I. Platform values and democratic elections: How can the law regulate digital disinformation? CLSR 2020, 36, 105373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, J. Constitutionalizing Self-Regulation. Mod. L. Rev. 1996, 59, 24–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teubner, G. Digitale Rechtssubjekte? Zum privatrechtlichen Status autonomer Softwareagenten. Arch. Für Civ. Prax. 2018, 218, 155–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grinzinger, J. Der Einsatz Künstlischer Intelligenz in Vertragsverhältnissen. In Privatrecht 2050—Blick in Die Digitale Zukunft, Jahrbuch Junge Zivilrechtswissenschaft 2019; Beyer, E., Erler, K., Hartmann, C., Kramme, M., Müller, M.F., Pertot, T., Tuna, E., Wilke, F.M., Eds.; Nomos: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2020; pp. 151–180. [Google Scholar]
- Chesterman, S. Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Legal Personality. ICLQ 2020, 69, 819–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, R.H. Ethics in the Internet Environment. In Global Commission on Internet Governance; Paper Series No. 39; Centre for International Governance Innovation: Waterloo, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill, O. A Question of Trust; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Castelluccia, C.; Le Métayer, D. Understanding Algorithmic Decision-Making: Opportunities and Challenges; Study for the European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Braun Binder, N.; Burri, T.; Lohmann, M.F.; Simmler, M.; Thouvenin, F.; Vokinger, K.N. Künstliche Intelligenz: Handlungsbedarf im Schweizer Recht. Jusletter 2011, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, R.H.; Henseler, S. Regulierung von Algorithmen in der EU und in der Schweiz. EUZ 2020, 22, 28–42. [Google Scholar]
- Borgerius, F.Z. Discrimination, Artifical Intelligence, and Algorithmic Decision-Making, Strasbourg 2018. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73 (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Barocas, S.; Selbst, A.D. Big Data’s Disparate Impact. Cal. L. Rev. 2016, 104, 671–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wachter, S. Affinity Profiling and Discrimination by Association in Online Behavioural Advertising. BTLJ 2020, 30, 367–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of Europe, Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence, Feasibility Study, CAHAI(2020)23, Strasbourg, 17 December 2020. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/cahai (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Kleinberg, J.; Ludwig, J.; Mullainathan, S.; Rambachan, A. Algorithmic Fairness. AEA Pap. Proc. 2018, 108, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- High-Level Expert Group of the European Union, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, April 2019. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- OECD. Principles on Artificial Intelligence, 22 May 2019. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles/ (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Google. AI at Google: Our Principles, 7 June 2018. Available online: https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/ai-principles/ (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Microsoft. Microsoft AI Principles. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/our-approach-to-ai (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Zerilli, J.; Knott, A.; Maclaurin, J.; Gavaghan, C. Transparency in Algorithmic an Human Decision-Making: Is There a Double Standard? Philos. Technol. 2019, 32, 661–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martini, M. Blackbox Algorithmus—Grundfragen Einer Regulierung Künstlerischer Intelliigenz; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Official Journal of the European Union, L 186/57 of 11 July 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62011TN0238&qid=1630891276279 (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Official Journal of the European Union, L 149/22 of 11 June 2005. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3AC2000%2F149%2F22&qid=1630891511912(accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/7 of 18 December 2019.
- Weber, R.H. From disclosure to transparency in consumer law. In Consumer Law and Economics; Mathis, K., Tor, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 73–87. [Google Scholar]
- McGregor, L.; Murray, D.; Ng, V. International Human Rights Law as a Framework for Algorithmic Accountability. Int. Comp. Law Q. 2019, 68, 309–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Djeffal, C. The Normative Potential of the European Rule on Automated Decisions: A New Recording for Art. 22 GDPR. ZaöRV. 2020, 80, 847–879. [Google Scholar]
- Mendoza, I.; Lee, A.B. The Right Not. to be Subject to Automated Decisions Based on Profiling. In EU Internet Law—Regulation and Enforcement; Synodinou, T.E., Jougleux, P., Markou, C., Prastitou, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 77–98. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, L.; Veale, M. Slave to Algorithm? Why a Right to an Explanation is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For. Duke L. Tech. Rev. 2017, 16, 18–84. [Google Scholar]
- Gasser, U.; Virgilio Almeida, A.F. A Layered Model for AI Governance. IEEE Internet Comput. 2017, 21, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts, SEC(2021) 167 final, COM(2021) 2006 final. Brussels, Belgium, 21 April 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206 (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- European Commission. White Paper on Artificial Intelligence—A European approach to excellence and trust. COM 2020, 65, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Council of the European Union. Presidency Conclusions—The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Context of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Change. Brussels, Belgium, 21 October 2020. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/46496/st11481-en20.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Spindler, G. Der Vorschlag der EU-Kommission für eine Verordnung zur Regulierung der Künstlichen Intelligenz (KI-VO-E). Comput. und. Recht. 2021, 6, 361–374. [Google Scholar]
- Zetzsche, D.A.; Woxholth, J. The DLT Sandbox under the Pilot-Regulation; EBI Working Paper Series 2021 No. 92; EBI: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Krönke, C. Sandkastenspiele—«Regulatory Sandboxes» aus der Perspektive des Allgemeinen Verwaltungsrechts. Juristen-Zeitung 2021, 76, 434–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veale, M.; Zuidereveen Borgesisu, F. Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Comp. L. Rev. Int. 2021, 4, 97–112. [Google Scholar]
Hard Law | Legitimized | Partly legitimized | Soft Law | |
Top-down bodies | Bottom-up bodies | |||
Stable/inflexible | Adaptable/flexible | |||
Enforceable | Partly enforceable |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Weber, R.H. Artificial Intelligence ante portas: Reactions of Law. J 2021, 4, 486-499. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030037
Weber RH. Artificial Intelligence ante portas: Reactions of Law. J. 2021; 4(3):486-499. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030037
Chicago/Turabian StyleWeber, Rolf H. 2021. "Artificial Intelligence ante portas: Reactions of Law" J 4, no. 3: 486-499. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030037