Artificial Intelligence as a Challenge for Law and Regulation

Hoffmann‐Riem, Wolfgang

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32361-5_1

Cited by 25 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, regulation is crucial for controlled implementation [108]-standards and ethical frameworks help ensure AI is deployed responsibly and in keeping with public values. Furthermore, more research and development (R&D) is required to ensure the cascading effects of AI, across the various levels of a city (local, neighborhood, city, and the larger regional ecosystem) and society.…”

Section: What Are the Promises And Pitfalls Of Artificial Intelligencmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Building “Artificially Intelligent Cities” Safeguard Humanity from Natural Disasters, Pandemics, and Other Catastrophes? An Urban Scholar’s Perspective

Yiğitcanlar

Butler

Windle

et al. 2020

Sensors

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has started to manifest itself at an unprecedented pace. With highly sophisticated capabilities, AI has the potential to dramatically change our cities and societies. Despite its growing importance, the urban and social implications of AI are still an understudied area. In order to contribute to the ongoing efforts to address this research gap, this paper introduces the notion of an artificially intelligent city as the potential successor of the popular smart city brand—where the smartness of a city has come to be strongly associated with the use of viable technological solutions, including AI. The study explores whether building artificially intelligent cities can safeguard humanity from natural disasters, pandemics, and other catastrophes. All of the statements in this viewpoint are based on a thorough review of the current status of AI literature, research, developments, trends, and applications. This paper generates insights and identifies prospective research questions by charting the evolution of AI and the potential impacts of the systematic adoption of AI in cities and societies. The generated insights inform urban policymakers, managers, and planners on how to ensure the correct uptake of AI in our cities, and the identified critical questions offer scholars directions for prospective research and development.

show abstract

Section: What Are the Promises And Pitfalls Of Artificial Intelligencmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Building “Artificially Intelligent Cities” Safeguard Humanity from Natural Disasters, Pandemics, and Other Catastrophes? An Urban Scholar’s Perspective

Yiğitcanlar

Butler

Windle

et al. 2020

Sensors

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several discourses about the use of artificial intelligence in the context of compliance and enforcement. Whilst some applaud its use, for example for the managing and enforcement of conservation and maintaining public spatial restrictions (Fang et al, 2019) , others warn for certain types of misuse (Maas, 2019;Hoffmann-Riem, 2020) and the need for more ethical considerations (Georgiadou et al, 2020). Despite the fact that geospatial data are now directly uploaded through mobile platforms and active sensors, the mere existence of data does not necessarily produce a direct benefit.…”

Section: Current Evidence Of Changes and Disruptions In Spatial Planning And Land Management Practices Regulations And Agencies Due To Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in The Adoption of New Geospatial Technologies for Spatial Planning and Land Management in 2021

Vries

2022

Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes in spatial planning and land management practices, regulations and operations have frequently relied on the uptake of innovations in geospatial technologies. This article reviews which ones the spatial planning and land management domains has effectively adopted and which new ones might potentially disrupt the domain in the near future of 2021 and beyond. Based on an extensive concept-centric trends synthesis and meta-review, the analysis demonstrates that whilst geospatial technologies are clearly gaining wider societal recognition and while private companies are indeed developing promising applications, its adoption in office work of public officials and public decision makers remains almost as limited as before. The potentially most disruptive technologies for the domain are however BIM, Block chain and Machine learning.

show abstract

“…That is, whether or when certain ML outcome could be regarded as unfair or unlawful is a conclusion, which requires resorting to normative propositions provided in the relevant legal domains, for example, labor law, consumer law, insurance law (Macmillan 2018, p. 51). Data protection law is not where we could seek for standards or rules that can be used to test the legality or the justifiability of the undesirable outcomes of ADM (Hoffmann‐Riem 2020, p. 14) 11…”

Section: Article 22 Of the Gdpr And The Right To Contest Automated De...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though not mandatory under the GDPR, certification – which verifies that a product, process, or service adheres to a given set of standards and/or criteria – may require the disclosure of extensive technical information. This may include the source code, the hardware/software environments in which the systems has been developed, and the performance of the system in the testing environments (Hoffmann‐Riem 2020, p. 13). As an integral part of the certification process, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has so far published several standards on big data , and further developing more on AI.…”

Section: Beyond Impediments: the 2nd Layer Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these regulatory and institutional affordances provided by the GDPR together with various soft‐law documents, it is arguable whether the current data protection authorities both at the member state and the Union level can handle such a wide range of regulatory, monitoring, and auditing tasks. As this will require a significant expansion of their powers and personnel, there are also views in favor of specialized institutions to monitor AI‐based applications and develop performance standards (Hoffmann‐Riem 2020, pp. 14–15).…”

Section: Beyond Impediments: the 2nd Layer Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The right to contest automated decisions under the General Data Protection Regulation: Beyond the so‐called “right to explanation”

Bayamlıoğlu

2021

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The right to contest automated decisions as provided by Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a due process provision with concrete transparency implications. Based on this, the paper in hand aims, first, to provide an interpretation of Art 22 and the right to contest (as the key provision in determining the contours of transparency in relation to automated decisions under the GDPR); second, to provide a systematic account of possible administrative, procedural, and technical mechanisms (transparency measures) that could be deployed for the purpose contesting automated decisions; and third, to examine the compatibility of these mechanisms with the GDPR. Following the introduction, Part II starts with an analysis of the newly enacted right to contest solely automated decisions as provided under Article 22 of the GDPR. This part identifies the right to contest in Article 22 as the core remedy, with inherent transparency requirements which are foundational for due process. Setting the right to contest as the backbone of protection against the adverse effects of solely automated decisions, Part III focuses on certain key points and provisions under the GDPR, which are described as the 1st layer (humanintelligible) transparency. This part explores to what extent "information and access" rights (Articles 13, 14, and 15) could satisfy the transparency requirements for the purposes of contestation as explained in Part II. Next, Part IV briefly identifies the limits of 1st layer transparencyexplaining how technical complexity together with competition and integrity-related concerns render human-level transparency either infeasible or legally impossible. In what follows, Part V conceptualizes a 2nd layer of transparency which consists of further administrative, procedural, and technical measures (i.e., design choices facilitating interpretability, institutional oversight, and algorithmic scrutiny). Finally, Part VI identifies four regulatory options, combining 1st and 2nd layer transparency measures to implement Article 22. The primary aim of the paper is to provide a systematic interpretation of Article 22 and examine how "the right to contest solely automated decisions" could help give meaning to the overall transparency provisions of the GDPR. With a view to transcend the current debates about the existence of a so-called right to an explanation, the paper develops an interdisciplinary approach, focusing on the specific transparency implications of the "right to contest" as a remedy of procedural nature.

show abstract

Artificial Intelligence as a Challenge for Law and Regulation

Cited by 25 publications

References 37 publications

Can Building “Artificially Intelligent Cities” Safeguard Humanity from Natural Disasters, Pandemics, and Other Catastrophes? An Urban Scholar’s Perspective

Can Building “Artificially Intelligent Cities” Safeguard Humanity from Natural Disasters, Pandemics, and Other Catastrophes? An Urban Scholar’s Perspective

Trends in The Adoption of New Geospatial Technologies for Spatial Planning and Land Management in 2021

The right to contest automated decisions under the General Data Protection Regulation: Beyond the so‐called “right to explanation”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About