As a counterweight to trade secrets, introduce anexternal auditing mechanism for automated decision-making, or set internal auditing requirements for datacontrollers
Solución de contrapeso a los secretos empresariales en pugna.
31 Matching Annotations
- Mar 2025
-
Local file Local file
-
-
According to this position, decisions formallyattributed to humans, but originating ‘from an auto-mated data-processing operation the result of which isnot actively assessed by either that person or other per-sons before being formalised as a decision’, would fallunder the scope of ‘automated decision-making’.
Determinar el origen de la decisión más allá de a quién se le atribuye formalmente.
-
loophole whereby any humaninvolvement in a decision-making process could meanit is not ‘automated decision-making’
Interesante vacío legal en la semántica de la norma europea.
-
Future jurisprudence
Investigar de igual manera.
-
An additional legal requirement is enacted byMember States, separate from the GDPR, granting aright of explanation of specific decisions
Investigar si ello ya existe o existió un proyecto que lo propuso.
-
It is worth noting that the SCHUFA judgments donot explicitly address automated decision-making, asthe court decided an automated decision was not madebecause automated processing was only used for prepa-ration of evidence, while the actual decision was madeby a human being.
No se evaluó debido a que se utilizó el procesamiento automático y la decisión fue meramente humana. ¿Pero no es el procesamiento de datos en cierto nivel interpretativo y ello un sesgo para la decisión humana?
-
weighting of certain elements
Término a asimilar.
-
show that data subjects do nothave a right to investigate fully the accuracy of auto-mated processing systems (in this case, credit scoring),as the underlying formulas are protected as tradesecret
Protección de las fórmulas vs. garantías constitucionales.
-
ogic of the ‘decision tree’
Investigar.
-
the right to obtain human interven-tion on the part of the controller, to express his or her point ofview and to contest the decision
En la UE ya es un derecho el obtener intervención humana e parte de la decisión, expresar su punto de vista y cuestionar la decisión.
-
French data protec-tion law46 grants data subjects a right to receive infor-mation about the ‘logic involved’ as long as it does notcontravene copyright regulations.
Un límite a la explicación de la lógica, copyright.
-
A right to explanationof specific decisions as a safeguard to ensure lawfulautomated decision-making was not envisaged.
Una comparación histórico-sistemática no tiene mucho sustento a mi criterio frente a una revolución tecnológica, donde, las capacidades de un algoritmo frente a casos particulares aun se encuentran en tela de juicio y no se equiparan a una labor profesional humana.
-
existence of automated decision-making . . . meaningfulinformation about the logic involved, as well as the signifi-cance and envisaged consequences of such processing(Article 15(1)h), [as opposed to] an explanation of thedecision reached (Recital 71).
La aparente interpretación errónea
-
semantics
También el quid del asunto. Quizás debería existir un apartado en el artículo dedicado al llamado a la importancia de la semántica en la técnica legislativa como en un símil a aquella que programa.
-
change from anotification duty to an access right has important conse-quences for the timing of explanations required fromthe data controller
Relevante.
-
It follows that the claim for an ex post right toexplanation of specific decisions30 is not correct. Anysuggestion to the contrary fails to distinguish between(i) the legally binding duty to notify the data subject ofthe logic involved, significance, and envisaged conse-quences of automated decision-making system beforedecision-making occurs (timeline problem) (Articles13–14), and (ii) the data subject’s non-binding right toan explanation of specific decisions (Recital 71) afterdecision-making occurs.
El aparente quid del asunto al momento.
-
(timeline problem)
Problemática relevante.
-
data subject shall not be based solely or predominantly onautomated processing and shall include human assessment,including an explanation of the decision reached after suchan assessment
Amenda que se propuso, donde sí se contemplaba de manera explícita un derecho a la explicación, pero que fue descartada.
-
Recitals provide guidance15 on how to interpret theArticles, but are not themselves legally binding
Información relevante sobre la interpretación de los "recitals" vs. los "Articles". Jurisprudencia de la Corte de Justicia Europea.
-
Jenna Burrell, ‘How the Machine “Thinks:” Understanding Opacity inMachine Learning Algorithms’ [2016] 3 Big Data & Society 1.
Revisar artículo. (Opacidad en los algoritmos de Machine Learning).
-
distinguish between explana-tions in terms of their timing in relation
Explicación/Motivación ¿Ex ante o ex post?
-
he rationale
¿Similitud con un rationale jurídico?
-
Christian Sandvig and others, ‘Auditing Algorithms: Research Methodsfor Detecting Discrimination on Internet Platforms’ [2014] Data andDiscrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry
Revisar artículo.
-
Brent Mittelstadt and others, ‘The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping theDebate’ [2016] 3 Big Data & Society 2
Revisar artículo.
-
the right not to besubject to automated decision-making and safeguardsenacted thereof (Article 22 and Recital 71); notificationduties of data controllers (Articles 13–14 and Recitals60–62); and the right to access (Article 15 andRecital 63).
3 derechos previstos en la GDPR ya relacionados a la toma de decisiones automatizadas.
-
‘right to be informed’
Derecho a ser informado en lugar de derecho a una explicación/motivación.
-
Mike Ananny, ‘Toward an Ethics of Algorithms Convening, Observation,Probability, and Timeliness’ (2016) 41 Science, Technology & HumanValues 93.
Revisar artículo.
-
Why a Right to Explanation of AutomatedDecision-Making Does Not Exist in the GeneralData Protection Regulation
Investigadores de la Universidad de Oxford.
-
GDPR lacks preciselanguage as well as explicit and well-defined rightsand safeguards against automated decision-mak-ing, and therefore runs the risk of being toothless.
LA UE a través de la Regulación de Protección de Datos (GDPR, 2016) ya se enfrenta en la actualidad (desde el 2017) debido a una imprecisión lingüística, a la impotencia de protección normativa frente a este tipo de problemáticas-
-
‘right notto be subject to automated decision-making’contained in Article 22 (from which the alleged‘right to explanation’ stems)
¿Existe en la UE entonces un derecho a no ser objeto de una toma de decisiones automática?
-
‘right to explanation’ of all decisions made byautomated or artificially intelligent algorithmicsystem
Derecho a la motivación/explicación de la toma de decisiones de algoritmos de IA.
-