Abstract

To make evaluations about the morally relevant impacts of algorithms, transparency is needed. This paper lays out discussion of algorithms and transparency in an explicitly moral analysis with a special focus on the domain of justice and security. The paper provides an account of the moral import of transparency, defined itself as an instrumental value denoting a state of affairs conducive to acquisition of knowledge about some X. A normative account of transparency is outlined relying on an intuitionist framework rooted in the works of Ross and Robert Audi. It will be argued that transparency can be derived as a subsidiary (prima facie) principle from other duties including beneficence and justice and that it is groundable in the value of knowledge. Building on this foundation, the paper examines transparency and duty conflict with a special focus on algorithms in justice and security, recognising that complete transparency can be impossible where duties conflict. It is argued that as a subsidiary (prima facie) principle, transparency is overridable but ineradicable, which is to say that sufficiently justifiable reasons for secrecy or opacity can licence limiting transparency, that is, there may be occasion where full transparency is not our final duty.

Highlights

  • In an age empowered by information technology and the generation of endless data, Big Data is being mined for patterns that can provide useful insights for action across multitudes of contexts, from commercial to governance

  • This paper argues that transparency obligations can usefully be understood as a subsidiary principle of prima facie duty in the ethical intuitionist tradition, and as such may be overridable but not ineradicable in situations of sufficiently weighty countervailing duty claims (Audi 2005, p. 24)

  • Whilst the police hold a duty of transparency and it would normally be ideal to contribute to a state of knowledge about their algorithm, they can fairly argue that not sharing this information is necessary for maintaining the efficacy of a system that could potentially, say, identify fleeing criminals and could otherwise be used for enforcing the law

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In an age empowered by information technology and the generation of endless data, Big Data is being mined for patterns that can provide useful insights for action across multitudes of contexts, from commercial to governance. The work presented here, noting the urgency of transparency of both algorithms and the contexts in which they are embedded, primarily explores the normative dimension of transparency, what it is, why it is ethical, and how it may conflict with other values and duties, using the case of algorithms in justice and security to illustrate points and provide examples of application and clarification. This utilises examples of algorithms in justice and security to illustrate points and examine applications.

What is transparency?
Transparency and algorithms in justice and security
Ethical intuitionism and transparency as a subsidiary principle of duty
Justice
10. Respectfulness
Transparency as a subsidiary principle of prima facie duty
Transparency duty bearers
Transparency rights holders
On the duty to make transparent algorithms and the role of explanation
Qualified transparency
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call