Technological Due Process

Distinct and complementary procedures for adjudication and rulemaking lie at the heart of twentieth-century administrative law. Due process requires agencies to provide individuals notice and an opportunity to be heard. Through public rulemaking, agencies can foreclose policy issues that individuals might otherwise raise in adjudication. One system allows for focused advocacy; the other features broad participation. Each procedural regime compensates for the normative limits of the other. Both depend on clear statements of reason. The dichotomy between these procedural regimes is rapidly becoming outmoded. This century’s automated decision making systems combine individual adjudications with rulemaking while adhering to the procedural safeguards of neither. Automated systems jeopardize due process norms. Hearings are devalued by the lack of meaningful notice and by the hearing officer’s tendency to presume a computer system’s infallibility. The Mathews v. Eldridge cost-benefit analysis is ill-equipped to compare the high fixed cost of deciphering a computer system’s logic with the accumulating variable benefit of correcting myriad inaccurate decisions made based on this logic. Automation also defeats participatory rulemaking. Code, not rules, determines the outcomes of adjudications. Programmers inevitably alter established rules when embedding them into code in ways the public, elected officials, and the courts cannot review. Last century’s procedures cannot repair these accountability deficits. A new concept of technological due process is essential to vindicate the norms underlying last century’s procedural protections. This Article will demonstrate how a carefully structured inquisitorial model of quality control can partially replace aspects of adversarial justice that automation renders ineffectual. It also provides a framework of mechanisms capable of enhancing the transparency, accountability, and accuracy of rules embedded in automated decision-making systems

AI and digital tools in workplace management and evaluation: An assessment of the EU\u27s legal framework

This study focuses on options for regulating the use of AI enabled and algorithmic management systems in the world of work under EU law. The first part describes how these technologies are already being deployed, particularly in recruitment, staff appraisal, task distribution and disciplinary procedures. It discusses some near-term potential development prospects and presents an impact assessment, highlighting some of these technologies\u27 most significant implications. The second part addresses the regulatory field. It examines the different EU regulations and directives that are already relevant to regulating the use of AI in employment. Subsequently, it analyses the potential labour and employment implications of the European Commission\u27s proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI act). Finally, it summarises the other ongoing EU policy debates relevant to the regulation of AI at work. The third and final part of this study reflects in detail upon the AI act and its potential impact on the existing EU social acquis. On this basis, it advances potential policy options across different EU legislative files, including but not limited to the AI act, to ensure that regulation keeps pace with technological development. It also argues that the AI act should \u27serve\u27 and complement – rather than over-ride – other regulatory standards that can already govern the introduction and use of AI-enabled and algorithmic-management systems at work

Person-Centred Records. A High-level Review of Use Cases

The report presents a high-level review of patient-centred Electronic Health Records for NHS Grampian. The report showcases 13 case studies on the design of person-centred electronic health records as used by multidisciplinary health and care teams

The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions

Big Data is increasingly mined to rank and rate individuals. Predictive algorithms assess whether we are good credit risks, desirable employees, reliable tenants, valuable customers — or deadbeats, shirkers, menaces, and “wastes of time.” Crucial opportunities are on the line, including the ability to obtain loans, work, housing, and insurance. Though automated scoring is pervasive and consequential, it is also opaque and lacking oversight. In one area where regulation does prevail — credit — the law focuses on credit history, not the derivation of scores from data. Procedural regularity is essential for those stigmatized by “artificially intelligent” scoring systems. The American due process tradition should inform basic safeguards. Regulators should be able to test scoring systems to ensure their fairness and accuracy. Individuals should be granted meaningful opportunities to challenge adverse decisions based on scores miscategorizing them. Without such protections in place, systems could launder biased and arbitrary data into powerfully stigmatizing scores

Federal Register

Daily publication of the U.S. Office of the Federal Register contains rules and regulations, proposed legislation and rule changes, and other notices, including "Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest" (p. ii). Table of Contents starts on page iii

The future of Cybersecurity in Italy: Strategic focus area

This volume has been created as a continuation of the previous one, with the aim of outlining a set of focus areas and actions that the Italian Nation research community considers essential. The book touches many aspects of cyber security, ranging from the definition of the infrastructure and controls needed to organize cyberdefence to the actions and technologies to be developed to be better protected, from the identification of the main technologies to be defended to the proposal of a set of horizontal actions for training, awareness raising, and risk management

Research Outlook : November 2016

Content - Research in the News - INNOVATE: Building a Future - INFUSE: Creating the Framework - IMPACT: Stepping Up - Funding Opportunities - Partners at a Glancehttps://ecommons.aku.edu/research_outlook/1003/thumbnail.jp