Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Standard

Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling. / Veale, Michael; Edwards, Lilian.

In: Computer Law and Security Review, 10.01.2018.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Harvard

Veale, M & Edwards, L 2018, 'Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling' Computer Law and Security Review. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002

APA

Veale, M., & Edwards, L. (2018). Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling. Computer Law and Security Review. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002

Vancouver

Veale M, Edwards L. Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling. Computer Law and Security Review. 2018 Jan 10. Available from, DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002

Author

Veale, Michael ; Edwards, Lilian. / Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling. In: Computer Law and Security Review. 2018

BibTeX - Download

@article{20cea36282c241acb83a3502939f4f80,
title = "Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling",
abstract = "The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party's recent draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling seeks to clarify European data protection (DP) law's little-used right to prevent automated decision-making, as well as the provisions around profiling more broadly, in the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation. In this paper, we analyse these new guidelines in the context of recent scholarly debates and technological concerns. They foray into the less-trodden areas of bias and non-discrimination, the significance of advertising, the nature of “solely” automated decisions, impacts upon groups and the inference of special categories of data—at times, appearing more to be making or extending rules than to be interpreting them. At the same time, they provide only partial clarity – and perhaps even some extra confusion – around both the much discussed “right to an explanation” and the apparent prohibition on significant automated decisions concerning children. The Working Party appears to feel less mandated to adjudicate in these conflicts between the recitals and the enacting articles than to explore altogether new avenues. Nevertheless, the directions they choose to explore are particularly important ones for the future governance of machine learning and artificial intelligence in Europe and beyond.",
keywords = "automated decision making, algorithmic decision making, right to an explanation, right of access, data protection regulation",
author = "Michael Veale and Lilian Edwards",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002",
journal = "Computer Law and Security Review",
issn = "0267-3649",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling

AU - Veale,Michael

AU - Edwards,Lilian

PY - 2018/1/10

Y1 - 2018/1/10

N2 - The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party's recent draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling seeks to clarify European data protection (DP) law's little-used right to prevent automated decision-making, as well as the provisions around profiling more broadly, in the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation. In this paper, we analyse these new guidelines in the context of recent scholarly debates and technological concerns. They foray into the less-trodden areas of bias and non-discrimination, the significance of advertising, the nature of “solely” automated decisions, impacts upon groups and the inference of special categories of data—at times, appearing more to be making or extending rules than to be interpreting them. At the same time, they provide only partial clarity – and perhaps even some extra confusion – around both the much discussed “right to an explanation” and the apparent prohibition on significant automated decisions concerning children. The Working Party appears to feel less mandated to adjudicate in these conflicts between the recitals and the enacting articles than to explore altogether new avenues. Nevertheless, the directions they choose to explore are particularly important ones for the future governance of machine learning and artificial intelligence in Europe and beyond.

AB - The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party's recent draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling seeks to clarify European data protection (DP) law's little-used right to prevent automated decision-making, as well as the provisions around profiling more broadly, in the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation. In this paper, we analyse these new guidelines in the context of recent scholarly debates and technological concerns. They foray into the less-trodden areas of bias and non-discrimination, the significance of advertising, the nature of “solely” automated decisions, impacts upon groups and the inference of special categories of data—at times, appearing more to be making or extending rules than to be interpreting them. At the same time, they provide only partial clarity – and perhaps even some extra confusion – around both the much discussed “right to an explanation” and the apparent prohibition on significant automated decisions concerning children. The Working Party appears to feel less mandated to adjudicate in these conflicts between the recitals and the enacting articles than to explore altogether new avenues. Nevertheless, the directions they choose to explore are particularly important ones for the future governance of machine learning and artificial intelligence in Europe and beyond.

KW - automated decision making

KW - algorithmic decision making

KW - right to an explanation

KW - right of access

KW - data protection regulation

UR - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026736491730376X

U2 - 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002

DO - 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002

M3 - Article

JO - Computer Law and Security Review

T2 - Computer Law and Security Review

JF - Computer Law and Security Review

SN - 0267-3649

ER -

View graph of relations