As artificial intelligence technologies are increasingly deployed in this digital era entitled to generate automated and semi-automated decisions, and the internal logic of machine learning algorithms is typically opaque, the absence of a right to explanation will put the individuals in a weak position, so the right to an explanation for such decisions has become a critical legal issue. The right to an explanation is first written in the “General Data Protection Regulations”, and this year, China lays out the “Personal Information Protection Law”, which also includes the right to explanation. However, there are still shortcomings in the relevant regulations. Therefore, this paper comprehensively sorts out the right to explanation by studying the relevant literature and using the method of comparison, points that to construct the applicable logic of the right to explanation in China to ensure its effective implementation, it is necessary to clarify the connotation of the right to explanation, establish its application path and build a collaborative governance system.
References
[1]
A29WP (2016). Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and Determining Whether Processing Is “Likely to Result in a High Risk” for the Purposes of Regulation 2016/679.
[2]
A29WP (2018). Guidelines on Automated Individual Decision-Making and Profiling for the Purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (wp251rev.01).
[3]
AITR (2021). Report on Artificial Intelligence Development 2020. https://www.sohu.com/a/461233515_120056153
[4]
Balkin, J. M. (2017). Sidley Austin Distinguished Lecture on Big Data Law and Policy: The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data. OSLJ Ohio State Law Journal, 78, 1217-1241.
[5]
Brkan, M. (2019). Do Algorithms Rule the World? Algorithmic Decision-Making and Data Protection in the Framework of the GDPR and Beyond. The International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27, 91-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay017
[6]
Brkan, M., & Bonnet, G. (2020). Legal and Technical Feasibility of the GDPR’s Quest for Explanation of Algorithmic Decisions: Of Black Boxes, White Boxes and Fata Morganas. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 11, 18-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.10
[7]
Casey, B., Farhangi, A., & Vogl, R. (2019). Rethinking Explainable Machines: The GDPR’s “Right to Explanation” Debate and the Rise of Algorithmic Audits in Enterprise. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34, 143-188.
[8]
Castets-Renard, C. (2019). Accountability of Algorithms in the GDPR and Beyond: A European Legal Framework on Automated Decision-Making. The Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 30, 91-137. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3391266
[9]
Chen, J. (2021). Could Rights Be New?—Two Propositions of Emerging Rights and Their Criticism. Law and Social Development, No. 3, 90-110.
[10]
Desai, D. R., & Kroll, J. A. (2017). Trust but Verify: A Guide to Algorithms and the Law. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31, 1-64.
[11]
Docherty, C., McLean, F., & van der Merwe, D. (2017). GDPR Series: The New Data Subject Rights. PDP Journals, 17, 9-11.
[12]
EC European Commission (2018). The GDPR: New Opportunities, New Obligations.
[13]
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017). Slave to the Algorithm? Why a “Right to an Explanation” Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking for. Duke Law & Technology Review, 16, 18-84. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/97upg
[14]
EPRS (2019). Understanding Algorithmic Decision-Making: Opportunities and Challenges. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2019)624261
[15]
ETS (2016). Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data [ETS No. 108]. Draft Explanatory Report, Paragraph 75.
[16]
Freeman, K. (2016). Algorithmic Injustice: How the Wisconsin Supreme Court Failed to Protect Due Process Rights in State v. Loomis. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 18, 75.
[17]
Gillis, T. B., & Simons, J. (2019). Explanation < Justification: GDPR and the Perils of Privacy. Journal of Law & Innovation, 2, 71-99. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3374668
[18]
Han, S. (2020). How Algorithms Are Equal: Establishment of Algorithmic Discrimination Review Mechanisms. The South China Sea Law Journal, 4, 114-124.
[19]
IDC & Inspur (2021). 2020-2021 China Artificial Intelligence Computing Development Evaluation Report. https://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/2021-01-11/doc-iiznezxt1769886.shtml
[20]
Kaminski, M. E. (2019). The Right to Explanation, Explained. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34, 189-218. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/rgeus
[21]
Liang, Z. (2020). On the Exclusive Right of Algorithm: A New Choice for Correcting Algorithmic Bias. Political Science and Law, No. 8, 94-106.
[22]
Lu, S. (2020). Algorithmic Opacity, Private Accountability, and Corporate Social Disclosure in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and technology Law, 23, 99.
[23]
Mendoza, I., & Bygrave, L. A. (2017). The Right Not to Be Subject to Automated Decisions Based on Profiling. In T.-E. Synodinou, P. Jougleux, C. Markou, & T. Prastitou (Eds.), EU Internet Law: Regulation and Enforcement (pp. 77-98). Springer.
[24]
Nisevic, M. (2021). The “Right to an Explanation” of Automated Decision-Making Systems—Highlights of the EU Legal Landscape Referring to Explainable AI: Part 1. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 27, 29-32.
[25]
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review, 79, 119-120.
[26]
PCD (2021). Say No to Big Data Killing with Judicial Judgment. http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2021-07/17/content_207484.htm
[27]
PIRI (2021). Panorama of China’s Artificial Intelligence Industry in 2021. https://www.qianzhan.com/analyst/detail/220/210803-dad34c8d.html
[28]
Selbst, A. D., & Barocas, S. (2018). The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines. Fordham Law Review, 87, 1085-1139. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3126971
[29]
Selbst, A. D., & Powles, J. (2017). Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation. International Data Privacy Law, 7, 233-242. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx022
[30]
Sina, Finance & Economy (2020). I Was Cut Off by a Member of Meituan. https://finance.sina.com.cn/chanjing/cyxw/2020-12-17/doc-iiznezxs7345623.shtml
[31]
Tang, L. (2020). The Illusory Promise of “Separating from Algorithmic Automated Decision-Making Power”. Oriental Law, No. 6, 18-33.
[32]
Tsakiridi, S. (2020). AI Ethics in the Post-GDPR World: Part 1. PDP Journals, 20, 13-15.
[33]
UK Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO) (2020). Explaining Decisions Made with AI.
[34]
Wachter, S. et al. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7, 76-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
[35]
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2018). Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31, 841-887. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063289
[36]
Xie, Z. (2020). Regulating Algorithmic Decision—Focusing on the Right to Explanation of Algorithm. Modern Law Science, No. 1, 179-193.
[37]
Zhang, E. (2019a). Background, Logic and Structure of the Right to Explanation of Algorithmic Decision-Making in the Age of Big Data. Legal Forum, 34, 152-160.
[38]
Zhang, X. (2019b). Research on Right to Explanation and Algorithm Governance Path. Peking University Law Journal, No. 6, 1425-1445.
