3 ms·

Isn't it already under GDPR where entity using AI to make decisions need to provide an explanation how it arrived at it?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tremon 3y ago
Not just AI, it applies to any form of automated decision making (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/): The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. But there's the usual "explicit consent" caveat, which Meta will argue they have because the user (as in: habitual consumer of harmful substances) has agreed to it in their TOS. But then there is also a transparency requirement on automated decision making (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/): [data subject has access to] the existence of automated decision-making [and] meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject. This explicitly says that the user has the right to know what logic is employed by automated decision making systems.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  Yeah, you could definitely take a case here, as not allowing someone to advertise is relatively consequential.
james_in_the_uk 3y ago
The UK ICO has some guidance here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence/explaining-decisions-made-with-artificial-intelligence/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
- varispeed 3y ago
  UK organisations are quite impotent. As in a lot of talk and very little walk. Unfortunately.
  - james_in_the_uk 3y ago
    ICO has brought fines. Perhaps more significantly, privacy activists are starting to bring cases in courts. Data rights enforcement is nascent/emerging but certainly a space to watch.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tremon 3y ago

Not just AI, it applies to any form of automated decision making (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/): The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. But there's the usual "explicit consent" caveat, which Meta will argue they have because the user (as in: habitual consumer of harmful substances) has agreed to it in their TOS. But then there is also a transparency requirement on automated decision making (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/): [data subject has access to] the existence of automated decision-making [and] meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject. This explicitly says that the user has the right to know what logic is employed by automated decision making systems.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
Yeah, you could definitely take a case here, as not allowing someone to advertise is relatively consequential.

james_in_the_uk 3y ago

The UK ICO has some guidance here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence/explaining-decisions-made-with-artificial-intelligence/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

varispeed 3y ago
UK organisations are quite impotent. As in a lot of talk and very little walk. Unfortunately.
- james_in_the_uk 3y ago
  ICO has brought fines. Perhaps more significantly, privacy activists are starting to bring cases in courts. Data rights enforcement is nascent/emerging but certainly a space to watch.