The ethics of Artificial Intelligence: An analysis of ethical frameworks disciplining AI in justice and other contexts of application

Giampiero Lupo

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1273

Autores/as

Giampiero Lupo IGSG-CNR https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3614-1967

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1273

Palabras clave:

e-justicia, ética de la IA, IA en los sistemas judiciales, derecho y tecnología, informática jurídica

Resumen

La reciente introducción de herramientas de IA en el sector de la justicia plantea varias implicaciones éticas, como riesgos para la independencia de los jueces y para la transparencia procesal, así como sesgos de discriminación. Mediante el desarrollo de marcos éticos que rigen la aplicación de la IA, los agentes privados y públicos se han enfrentado cada vez más a los riesgos relacionados con el uso de la IA. Al hacer inventario y análisis de un conjunto de documentos éticos mediante un análisis de contenido, este estudio pone de manifiesto las implicaciones éticas que conlleva la aplicación de la IA. Además, al investigar la Carta de la CEPEJ (Comisión Europea para la Eficacia de la Justicia del Consejo de Europa), el único documento ético centrado en la IA en la justicia, pudimos arrojar luz sobre las posibles diferencias entre la justicia y otros contextos de aplicación de la IA con respecto a los riesgos previstos y la protección de los principios éticos. El análisis confirma que la disciplina de la IA es un tema complejo que implica aspectos muy diferentes y, por lo tanto, necesita un enfoque amplio en todos los contextos de aplicación.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Metrics

Views 1785
Downloads:
PDF_12_3_Lupo_OSLS (English) 1560
XML_12_3_Lupo_OSLS (English) 1122

Biografía del autor/a

Giampiero Lupo, IGSG-CNR

* Giampiero Lupo received his PhD in Political Science-Comparative and European Politics in 2010 at the University of Siena. He has been a researcher at the University of Bologna working on deliberative democracy, quality of democracy, justice systems, e-justice. He currently works as a researcher at the IGSG-CNR (Research Institute on Legal Informatics and Justice Systems - National Research Council of Italy) participating to a set of international projects as Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online, e-Codex, Towards Cyberjustice and publishing in peer-reviewed books and articles the results of his research. His main scientific interests are Artificial Intelligence and justice, e-justice, quality of democracy, quality of justice systems, deliberative democracy. Email address: giampiero.lupo@bo.igsg.cnr.it

Citas

Abiteboul, S., and G’Sell, F., 2019. Les algorithmes pourraient-ils remplacer les juges? [online]. Paris: Dalloz. Available from: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02304016 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Angelides, S., 2012. Disorder as “Pseudo-Idea”. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 35(2), 10–20.

Bailey, J., Burkell, J., and Reynolds, G., 2013. Access to Justice for All: Towards an Expansive Vision of Justice and Technology. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice [online], 31(2), 181. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v31i2.4419 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Barrett, C., 2019. Are the EU GDPR and the California CCPA becoming the de facto global standards for data privacy and protection? Scitech Lawyer, 15(3), 24–29.

Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., and Ehret, B., 2009. Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(1), 21–40.

Cappelletti, M., 1979. Accesso alla giustizia: conclusione di un progetto internazionale di ricerca giuridico-sociologica. Il Foro Italiano, vol. 102, 53/54-59/60.

Castelvecchi, D., 2016. Can we open the black box of AI? Nature News [online], 538(7623), 20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/538020a [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Contini, F., 2020. Artificial intelligence and the transformation of humans, law and technology interactions in judicial proceedings. Law, Technology and Humans [online], 2(1), 4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1478 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Contini, F., and Fabri, M., 2003. Judicial electronic data interchange in Europe. Judicial electronic data interchange in Europe: Applications, policies and trends, 1–26.

Contini, F., and Lanzara, G., eds., 2008. ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government. Cham: Springer.

Croux, C., and Dehon, C., 2010. Influence functions of the Spearman and Kendall correlation measures. Statistical methods & applications, 19(4), 497–515.

Daly, A., Devitt, S.K., and Mann, M., 2021. AI Ethics Needs Good Data. In: P. Verdegem, ed., AI for Everyone? Critical Perspectives [online]. London: University of Westminster Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.16997/book55.g [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Daly, A., et al., 2019. Artificial intelligence, governance and ethics: Global perspectives. The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper [online], (2019–15). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3414805 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Davenport, T.H., Barth, P., and Bean, R., 2012. How “big data” is different. MIT Sloan Management Review [online], 30 July. Available from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-big-data-is-different/ [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Donaldson, M.S., Corrigan, J.M., and Kohn, L.T., eds., 2000. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Downer, J., 2010. Trust and technology: the social foundations of aviation regulation. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(1), 83–106.

Erickson, A., 2018. Comparative Analysis of the EU’s GDPR and Brazil’s LGPD: Enforcement Challenges with the LGPD. Brooklyn Journal of International Law [online], 44(2), 859. Available from: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol44/iss2/9/ [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Erlingsson, C., and Brysiewicz, P., 2017. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine [online], 7(3), 93–99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Etikan, I., Musa, S.A., and Alkassim, R.S., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics [online], 5(1), 1–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

European Commission for the Effectiveness of Justice of the Council of Europe (CEPEJ), 2018. European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment [online]. Adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of the CEPEJ (Strasbourg, 3–4 December 2018). Strasbourg: European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c [Accessed 15 February 2022].

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), 2013. ENCJ Working Group: Judicial Ethics Report 2009–2010 [online]. Report of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. Available from: https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/ethics/judicialethicsdeontologiefinal.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Fersini, E., et al., 2010. Semantics and machine learning: A new generation of court management systems [online]. International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering, and Knowledge Management. Valencia, 25–28 October.

Floridi, L., 2018. Soft ethics and the governance of the digital. Philosophy & Technology [online], 31(1), 1–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0303-9 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Foucault, M., 1977. Historia de la medicalización. Educación médica y salud [online], 11(1), 3–25. Available from: https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/3182/Educacion%20medica%20y%20salud%20%2811%29%2C%201.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Gavaghan, C., 2017. Lex Machina: Techno-Regulatory Mechanisms and Rules by Design. Otago Law Review [online], 15(1), 123. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10523/9199 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Gill, L., Redeker, D., and Gasser, U., 2015. Towards digital constitutionalism? Mapping attempts to craft an internet bill of rights. Mapping Attempts to Craft an Internet Bill of Rights (November 9, 2015). Berkman Center Research Publication [online], no. 2015-15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2687120 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Hagendorff, T., 2020. The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines [online], 30(1), 99–120. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Hammoud, H., 2020. Trade Secrets and Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities & Challenges [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3759349 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Hanseth, O., and Lyytinen, K., 2016. Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. In: L.P. Willcocks, C.Sauer and M.C. Lacity, eds., Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 104–142.

Hoffman, S., and Podgurski, A., 2013. Big bad data: Law, public health, and biomedical databases. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(S1), 56–60.

Huijboom, N., and Van den Broek, T., 2011. Open data: an international comparison of strategies. European journal of ePractice, 12(1), 4–16.

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., and Vayena, E., 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399.

Lanzara, G.F., 2009. Building digital institutions: ICT and the rise of assemblages in government. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. Technology, Work and Globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 9–48.

Lanzara, G.F., 2016. Shifting practices: Reflections on technology, practice, and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lin, P., Abney, K., and Bekey, G., 2011. Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence, 175(5–6), 942–949.

Liu, H.W., Lin, C.F., and Chen, Y.J., 2019. Beyond State v Loomis: artificial intelligence, government algorithmization and accountability. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(2), 122–141.

Lohr, J.D., Maxwell, W.J, and Watts, P., 2019. Legal Practitioners’ Approach to Regulating AI Risks. In: K. Yeung and M. Lodge, eds., Algorithmic Regulation. Oxford University Press, 224–247.

Lupo, G., 2019. Regulating (Artificial) Intelligence in Justice: How Normative Frameworks Protect Citizens from the Risks Related to AI Use in the Judiciary. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities [online], 8(2), 75–96. Available from: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62463-8 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Lupo, G., and Bailey, J., 2014. Designing and implementing e-Justice Systems: Some lessons learned from EU and Canadian Examples. Laws [online], 3(2), 353–387. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3020353 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Marchant, G.E., 2011. The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. In: G. Marchant, B. Allenby and J. Herkert, eds., The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology (vol 7). Dordrecht: Springer, 35–44.

Mayring, P., 2004. Qualitative content analysis. In: U. Flick, E.v. Kardorff and I. Steinke, eds., A companion to qualitative research. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage, 159–176.

Mohr, R., and Contini, F., 2011. Reassembling the Legal: “The Wonders of Modern Science” in Court-Related Proceedings. Griffith Law Review, 20(4), 994–1019.

Mol, A., 1998. Lived reality and the multiplicity of norms: a critical tribute to George Canguilhem. Economy and Society, 27 (2–3), 274–284.

Morison, J., and Harkens, A., 2020. Algorithmic justice: dispute resolution and the robot judge? In: M.F. Moscati, M. Palmer and M. Roberts, eds., Comparative Dispute Resolution. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 339–352.

Nunez, C., 2017. Artificial intelligence and legal ethics: Whether AI lawyers can make ethical decisions. Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property [online], vol. 20, 189. Available from: https://journals.tulane.edu/TIP/article/view/2682 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Reiling, D., 2016. Technology for justice: How information technology can support judicial reform. Amsterdam University Press.

Rességuier, A., and Rodrigues, R., 2020. AI ethics should not remain toothless! A call to bring back the teeth of ethics. Big Data & Society [online], 7(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720942541 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Rigano, C., 2019. Using artificial intelligence to address criminal justice needs. National Institute of Justice Journal [online], 280, 1–10. Available from: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/using-artificial-intelligence-address-criminal-justice-needs [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Rissland, E.L., Ashley, K.D., and Branting, L.K., 2005. Case-based reasoning and law. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 293–298.

Roodman, D., 2012. Due diligence: An impertinent inquiry into microfinance. Washington, DC: CGD Books.

Rositi, F., 1988. Analisi del contenuto. In: M. Livolsi and F. Rositi, eds., La icercar sull’industria culturale. Rome: NIS, 59–94.

Russell, S.J., and Norvig, P., 2002. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Prentice Hall.

Russell, S.J., and Norvig, P., 2016. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. 3rd ed. Malaysia/London: Pearson Education.

Sandefur, R.L., 2009. Access to justice: Classical approaches and new directions. In: R.L. Sandefur, ed., Access to Justice. Bingley: Emerald, ix–xvii.

Santosuosso, A., and Poletti, D., 2020. Intelligenza artificiale e diritto: Perché le tecnologie di IA sono una grande opportunità per il diritto. Milan: Mondadori Università.

Schiff, D., et al., 2020. What’s Next for AI Ethics, Policy, and Governance? A Global Overview. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. New York, 7–9 February. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Sherman, J., 2013. Court Information Management Policy Framework to Accommodate the Digital Environment. Discussion Paper (U14-23/2013E-PDF) [online]. Ottawa: Canadian Judicial Council. Available from: https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/general/AJC/Policy%20Framework%20to%20Accommodate%20the%20Digital%20Environment%202013-03.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Simshaw, D., 2018. Ethical issues in robo-lawyering: The need for guidance on developing and using artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Hastings Law Journal [online], vol. 70, 173. Available from: https://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/70.1-Simshaw.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Skeem, J., and Eno Louden, J., 2007. Assessment of evidence on the quality of the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) [online]. Report prepared for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation by the Center for Public Policy Research. Davis: University of California. Available from: https://webfiles.uci.edu/skeem/Downloads_files/CDCR%20Skeem%26%20EnoLouden%20COMPASeval%20SECONDREVISION%20final%20Dec%2028%2007.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Spajosević, D., et al., 2020. Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field [online]. Final report. Prepared by the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. Brussels: European Commission. Available from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4fb8e194-f634-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Susskind, R.E., 1987. Expert systems in law: out of the research laboratory and into the marketplace. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law. Boston, 27–29 May. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Tallacchini, M., 2009. Governing by values. EU ethics: soft tool, hard effects. Minerva, 47(3), 281–306.

Tallacchini, M., 2015. To Bind or Not to Bind? European Ethics as Dolft law. In: S. Hilgartner, C. Miller and R. Hagendijk, eds., Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. Abingdon: Routledge, 156–175.

Thomas, I., 2020. Getting ready for the California Consumer Privacy Act: Building on General Data Protection Regulation preparedness. Applied Marketing Analytics, 5(3), 210–222.

Tipaldo, G., 2007. L’analisi del contenuto nella ricerca sociale: Spunti per una riflessione multidisciplinare. Quaderni di Ricerca del Dipartimento di Scienze sociali dell’Università di Torino, 9.

Van Dijk, N., and Casiraghi, S. 2020. “The “ethification” of privacy and data protection law in the European Union. The Case of Artificial Intelligence. Brussels Privacy Hub Working Paper [online], 6(22). Available from: https://brusselsprivacyhub.eu/publications/BPH-Working-Paper-VOL6-N22.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Velicogna, M., 2007. Justice systems and ICT-What can be learned from Europe. Utrecht Law Review [online], 3(1), 129–147. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.41 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Velicogna, M., 2018. e-Justice in Europe: From national experiences to EU cross-border service provision. In: L. Alcaide Muñoz and M. Rodríguez Bolívar, eds., International E-Government Development. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 39–72.

Wagner, B., 2018. Ethics as an escape from regulation: From ethics-washing to ethics-shopping. Being profiling. Cogitas ergo sum, 1–7.

Wallace, A., 2003. Overview of public access and privacy issues. Paper delivered at Queensland University of Technology Conference. 6 November.

Washington, A.L., 2018. How to argue with an algorithm: Lessons from the COMPAS-ProPublica debate. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 17(1), 131–161.

Wilkinson, S., 2018. Brazil’s new General Data Protection Law. Journal of Data Protection & Privacy, 2(2), 107–115.

Završnik, A., 2020. Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. ERA Forum [online], 20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-020-00602-0 [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Zlătescu, I.M., and Zlătescu, P.E., 2019. Implementation of the European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment. Law Review: Judicial Doctrine & Case-Law [online], 10, 237–242. Available from: http://internationallawreview.eu/fisiere/pdf/23_Zlatescu__Supliment_Law_Review_SRDE.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2022].