The Problem of the Automation Bias in the Public Sector: A Legal Perspective

The automation bias describes the phenomenon, proven in behavioural psychology, that people place excessive trust in the decision suggestions of machines. The law currently sees a dichotomy - and covers only fully automated decisions, and not those involving human decision makers at any stage of the process. However, the widespread use of such systems, for example to inform decisions in education or benefits administration, creates a leverage effect and increases the number of people affected. Particularly in environments where people routinely have to make a large number of similar decisions, the risk of automation bias increases. As an example, automated decisions providing suggestions for job placements illustrate the particular challenges of decision support systems in the public sector. So far, the risks have not been sufficiently addressed in legislation, as the analysis of the GDPR and the draft Artificial Intelligence Act show. I argue for the need for regulation and present initial approaches

The development of refugee law clinics in Germany in view of the refugee crisis in Europe

Coming to an unknown country, seeking for refuge, having nobody anymore, because of the family murdered by a criminal regime, not being able to speak the language of the country, having no idea of the legal system – this scenario can put refugees in very difficult circumstances, especially if the refugees need legal advice concerning their situation. There is not only the pressure of getting along with the horrific experiences the refugee went through but sometimes even legal problems that have to be solved, sometimes problems that may decide whether a person can stay in the country or has to leave it.And most of the time small issues, like how to deal with certain formalities or what steps to undertake next, are in question. This is where law clinics, especially the specialized refugee law clinics, might help

Arbitrating in Italy and Germany

This volume assembles overviews on recent developments in German and Italian arbitration. In both countries there have been changes and amendments of the institutional rules issued by the respective institutions, being the “Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DIS)” for Germany and the ”Camera Arbitrale di Milano (CAM)” for Italy, in the last few years. These reforms reflect common goals such as speeding up arbitral proceedings, but there remain differences in some respects. In addition, new developments in legislation and in case law of both countries are explained and compared in the articles

Arbitrating in Italy and Germany

This volume assembles overviews on recent developments in German and Italian arbitration. In both countries there have been changes and amendments of the institutional rules issued by the respective institutions, being the “Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DIS)” for Germany and the ”Camera Arbitrale di Milano (CAM)” for Italy, in the last few years. These reforms reflect common goals such as speeding up arbitral proceedings, but there remain differences in some respects. In addition, new developments in legislation and in case law of both countries are explained and compared in the articles

Judicial Jurisdiction over Internet Privacy Violations and the GDPR: a Case of ''Privacy Tourism''?

This paper discusses the impact of art. 79(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in international litigation over online privacy violations. The first part introduces the tendency of the European legislator to treat private international law problems in the field of data protection as isolated and independent from the traditional secondary private international law acts. The second part analyses the current status quo of international jurisdiction over online privacy violations according to Regulation 1215/2012. After briefly examining the eDate and Martinez ruling (joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), it concludes that the Court of Justice of the European Union has stretched the jurisdictional grounds of art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012 too far in order to afford strong protection to data subjects. In that sense, it raises doubts on whether art. 79(2) was necessary. Following this conclusion, it tries to explore the uneasy relationship of GDPR art. 79(2) with the jurisdictional regime established under Regulation 1215/2012. Instead of an epilogue, the last part tries to make some reflections on the impact of GDPR art. 79(2) in privacy litigation cases involving non-EU parties

IMPLEMENTING ETHICS INTO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A CONTRIBUTION, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AI GOVERNANCE REGIME

The increasing use of AI and autonomous systems will have revolutionary impacts on society. Despite many benefits, AI and autonomous systems involve considerable risks that need to be managed. Minimizing these risks will emphasize the respective benefits while at the same time protecting the ethical values defined by fundamental rights and basic constitutional principles, thereby preserving a human centric society. This Article advocates for the need to conduct in-depth risk-benefit-assessments with regard to the use of AI and autonomous systems. This Article points out major concerns in relation to AI and autonomous systems such as likely job losses, causation of damages, lack of transparency, increasing loss of humanity in social relationships, loss of privacy and personal autonomy, potential information biases and the error proneness, and susceptibility to manipulation of AI and autonomous systems

Le RGPD et le sous-traitant suisse: quelle application du Règlement général de protection des données à un sous-traitant établi hors de l’Espace économique européen ?

Loin d’être évidente, la question de l’application du RGPD aux traitements de données à caractère personnel confiés à un sous-traitant a mené à de nouvelles discussions suite à la publication, en fin d’année 2019, de la version finale de lignes directrices censées la clarifier – mais qui ont en réalité apporté de nouvelles zones d’ombre. Dans leur article, les auteurs rappellent les différents rôles intervenant dans un traitement de données à caractère personnel ainsi que les dispositions relatives au champ d’application territorial du RGPD, ceci avant d’examiner spécifiquement le cas du sous-traitant. Le RGPD et le sous-traitant suisse: quelle application du Règlement général de protection des données à un sous-traitant établi hors de l’Espace économique européen

Ownership of data: Four recommendations for future research

This Article makes four recommendations for ongoing and future research about data ownership. The essence of these recommendations is that we need to know what we are talking about before we can even think of trying to answer the question whether data ownership should be recognized. What do we mean by ownership? And are we talking about information, data, digital data, data files, or data carriers? The first and second recommendations assert that lawyers need to be precise about the meaning and the possible object of ownership. Lawyers also need to cooperate closely with IT-specialists in order to know what is out there in the digital word which is this Article's third recommendation. The fourth recommendation holds that creditors of digital data owners must also be considered and treated as stakeholders in the debate on recognizing data ownership

PIL AND CISG: FRIENDS OR FOES?

PIL AND CISG: FRIENDS OR FOES