Casting the Dragnet: Communications Data Retention Under the Investigatory Powers Act

In November 2016 the Investigatory Powers Act ('IPA') received Royal Assent. IPA was hailed by the Government as bringing the UK’s surveillance framework into the 21st Century and better allowing security and intelligence agencies to combat terrorism and serious crime. IPA raises a range of concerns, with its progress through Parliament marked by sustained opposition from civil liberties groups. One of the most controversial aspects of IPA is the bulk communications data retention and disclosure framework in Parts 3 and 4. This article concerns the compatibility of that framework with EU law in light of CJEU decisions in Digital Rights Ireland ('DRI') and Watson. It will begin by briefly providing some background, will then broadly set out the requirements that can be determined from these decisions, and will proceed to take a more detailed analysis of these requirements in relation to Parts 3 and 4 IPA

Reviewable Automated Decision-Making

© 2020 Jennifer Cobbe and Jatinder Singh In this paper we introduce the concept of ‘reviewability' as an alternative approach to improving the accountability of automated decision-making that involves machine learning systems. In doing so, we draw on an understanding of automated decision-making as a socio-technical process, involving both human (organisational) and technical components, beginning before a decision is made and extending beyond the decision itself. Although explanations for automated decisions may be useful in some contexts, they focus more narrowly on the model and therefore do not provide the information about that process as a whole that is necessary for many aspects of accountability, regulatory oversight, and assessments for legal compliance. Drawing on previous work on the application of administrative law and judicial review mechanisms to automated decision-making in the public sector, we argue that breaking down the automated decision-making process into its technical and organisational components allows us to consider how appropriate record-keeping and logging mechanisms implemented at each stage of that process would allow for the process as a whole to be reviewed. Although significant research is needed to explore how it can be implemented, we argue that a reviewability framework potentially offers for a more useful and more holistic form of accountability for automated decision-making than approaches focused more narrowly on explanations

Disclosure by Design : Designing information disclosures to support meaningful transparency and accountability

Funding Information: We acknowledge the financial support of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P024394/1 and EP/R033501/1) and Microsoft through the Microsoft Cloud Computing Research Centre

What lies beneath: transparency in online service supply chains

There is a noticeable trend towards the increased centralisation of Internet-based services. Though much focus has been on the dominance of organisations such as Facebook, Google and Netflix, popular consumer-facing services with large userbases, there has been far less discussion regarding those providing the infrastructure that supports websites, applications and other online services. This bears consideration, given that many online services rely on a range of services and platforms operated by third-party organisations. As such, this paper explores issues of consolidation as regards the systems supply chains that underpin and drive online services. Specifically, we note that while there are trends towards increased centralisation and dominance in the provision of supporting technical infrastructure, the nature of these run-time supply chains are relatively hidden. We explore the broader societal implications of this with regards to power and resilience, emphasising the lack of means, legal or technical, for uncovering the nature of the supply chains on which online services rely. Given society’s ever-growing reliance on data-driven technology, we conclude by arguing that more can be done to increase levels of transparency over the supply arrangements of technical infrastructure. This as a necessary precursor to determining what interventions, if any, may be required to deal with issues of consolidation in online infrastructure.We acknowledge the financial support of the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P024394/1, EP/R033501/1), University of Cambridge via the Trust & Technology Initiative, and Microsoft via the Microsoft Cloud Computing Research Centre

Public Policy and Artificial Intelligence: Vantage Points for Critical Inquiry

This chapter introduces three key lines of critical inquiry to address the relationship of artificial intelligence (AI) and public policy. We provide three vantage points to better understand this relationship, in which dominant narratives about AI’s merits for public sector decisions and service provision often clash with real world experiences of their limitations and illegal effects. First, we critically examine the politicaldrivers for, and significance of, how we define AI, its role and workings in the policy world; and how we demarcate the scope of regulation. Second, we explore the AI/policy relationship, by focusing on how it unfolds through specific, but often contradictory and ambivalent, practices, that in different settings, combine meaning, strategic action, technological affordances, as well as material/digital objects and their effects. Our third vantage point critically assesses how these practices are situated in an uneven political economy of AI technology production, and with what implications for global justice

Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systems

This paper introduces reviewability as a framework for improving the accountability of automated and algorithmic decision-making (ADM) involving machine learning. We draw on an understanding of ADM as a socio-technical process involving both human and technical elements, beginning before a decision is made and extending beyond the decision itself. While explanations and other model-centric mechanisms may assist some accountability concerns, they often provide insufficient information of these broader ADM processes for regulatory oversight and assessments of legal compliance. Reviewability involves breaking down the ADM process into technical and organisational elements to provide a systematic framework for determining the contextually appropriate record-keeping mechanisms to facilitate meaningful review - both of individual decisions and of the process as a whole. We argue that a reviewability framework, drawing on administrative law's approach to reviewing human decision-making, offers a practical way forward towards more a more holistic and legally-relevant form of accountability for ADM