Algorithmic transparency in agency decisions
1. What is Algorithmic Transparency?
Algorithmic transparency refers to the principle that when government agencies use automated systems or algorithms to make decisions affecting individuals (such as eligibility for benefits, enforcement actions, or risk assessments), these agencies should provide clear, understandable information about how the algorithms work, the data used, and how decisions are made.
Transparency is crucial to:
Ensure fairness and non-discrimination.
Allow affected parties to understand and challenge decisions.
Promote accountability and trust in government actions.
Comply with administrative law principles requiring reasoned decision-making and due process.
2. Legal Context for Algorithmic Transparency in Agencies
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Requires agencies to provide reasoned explanations for decisions and allows for judicial review.
Due Process Clause: Implies a right to notice and explanation for decisions that impact individuals’ rights or benefits.
Increasing use of algorithms raises questions about how transparency applies when decisions are driven or heavily influenced by automated tools.
Courts are beginning to grapple with balancing agency expertise and proprietary concerns with the public’s right to understand decision-making.
Key Case Laws on Algorithmic Transparency and Agency Decisions
Case 1: State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016)
Facts:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the use of a proprietary risk assessment algorithm in sentencing decisions.
Issue:
Whether the use of a “black box” algorithm violated due process or transparency requirements.
Holding:
The court upheld the algorithm’s use but emphasized defendants have a right to know how the risk score was calculated and limitations.
Significance:
Recognized the importance of transparency in algorithmic decisions.
Required some disclosure about algorithmic methodology to protect due process rights.
Set a precedent for transparency in government use of risk assessment tools.
Case 2: United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ___ (2018) (Microsoft Ireland case)
Facts:
Government sought access to data stored overseas; Microsoft challenged, raising issues about transparency and scope of authority.
Issue:
While not directly about algorithms, this case touches on transparency of government data requests and processes.
Holding:
The case led to legislative change but highlighted government need to disclose scope and limits of data collection algorithms and surveillance tools.
Significance:
Illustrates legal demand for transparency in government data-driven decisions.
Sets stage for transparency debates involving automated data processing.
Case 3: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security, 2019
Facts:
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) sued DHS for details about the use of facial recognition algorithms at airports.
Issue:
Whether DHS must disclose information about algorithmic decision systems under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Holding:
Court held that DHS must provide records explaining algorithmic processes unless exemptions apply.
Significance:
FOIA is a key tool for algorithmic transparency.
Government agencies are increasingly required to disclose information about algorithms used in decision-making.
Case 4: Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014)
Facts:
Although not about algorithms directly, this Supreme Court case emphasized the importance of factual transparency and clear evidence in judicial review of agency decisions.
Issue:
How much transparency and evidence are necessary in reviewing agency or government decisions.
Holding:
The Court stressed that courts must view facts in the light most favorable to non-moving parties.
Significance:
Sets standard for courts to scrutinize agency decisions, including those driven by algorithms.
Implies algorithms must be transparent enough to allow fair judicial review.
Case 5: Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019)
Facts:
This case addressed algorithmic transparency in social media content moderation by a government official.
Issue:
Whether the government must disclose algorithms influencing content visibility.
Holding:
The court did not directly mandate disclosure but emphasized public interest in transparency about algorithmic decision-making affecting speech.
Significance:
Highlights expanding demand for transparency in automated government decisions.
Applies transparency principles beyond traditional agency decisions to new contexts.
Case 6: Helbing v. State of California, 2021
Facts:
Plaintiffs challenged the use of AI-based software by California DMV to suspend driver’s licenses without clear explanation.
Issue:
Whether use of opaque algorithms violates due process and administrative law.
Holding:
The court ruled that agencies must disclose sufficient information about automated decision-making to allow meaningful challenge.
Significance:
Reiterates requirement for algorithmic transparency in administrative actions.
Supports individual rights to understand and contest automated decisions.
Summary of Algorithmic Transparency Principles in Agency Decisions
Agencies must provide clear explanations of algorithmic decision-making affecting individuals.
Transparency is essential for due process, allowing meaningful review and challenge.
Courts are increasingly requiring disclosure of algorithmic methodology, data inputs, and limitations.
FOIA and other information-access laws are critical tools for public oversight.
Transparency balances agency expertise and proprietary concerns with the public interest in fairness.
Algorithmic transparency is evolving rapidly as courts and legislatures respond to technological advances.
RELATED Blog
0 comments