4 ms·

>Because you don't need to. But GDPR indeed requires it for many kinds of decisionmaking, no?

• thesuitonym 4y ago
  Since when have tech companies cared about pesky little issues like laws and regulations?
• ceejayoz 4y ago
  No, it requires the ability to appeal an automated decision to a human. (Who will likely consult the computer and say no again, a month or two later.)
  • rosnd 4y ago
    This EU commission page suggests that a human review should be conducted before a client is informed of the decision, not only in the case of an appeal. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/dealing-citizens/are-there-restrictions-use-automated-decision-making_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
    • ceejayoz 4y ago
      "and that is legally binding or which significantly affects them" is important there, and only going to apply to some decisions.
      • rosnd 4y ago
        It sounds like banning an Uber account would qualify > In addition, processing can significantly affect an individual if it influences their personal circumstances, their behaviour or their choices (for example an automatic processing may lead to the refusal of an online credit application).
• Bombthecat 4y ago
  Audible means: you can query the AI ( or see the logs) and see why it came to the conclusion. Right now, I don't know any AI system doing that.
• Nextgrid 4y ago
  See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34063521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34063521 > In practice, legality depends on someone willing to investigate the offence and enforce the law. When it comes to the GDPR, that's not happening even for the biggest, blatant offences (Google and Facebook are still around despite breaching the regulation for 4+ years), so do you really think someone is going to bother investigating this?