The Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019 has been introduced to the US congress for consideration.
The Act applies to “person, partnership, or corporation” with “greater than $50,000,000 … annual gross receipts”, or “possesses or controls personal information on more than— 1,000,000 consumers; or 1,000,000 consumer devices;”.
What does this Act have to say?
(1) AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘automated decision system’’ means a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts consumers.
That is all encompassing.
The following is what the Act is really all about, i.e., impact assessment.
(2) AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEM IMPACT ASSESSMENT.—The term ‘‘automated decision system impact assessment’’ means a study evaluating an automated decision system and the automated decision system’s development process, including the design and training data of the automated decision system, for impacts on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security that includes, at a minimum—
I think there is a typo in the following: “training, data” -> “training data”
(A) a detailed description of the automated decision system, its design, its training, data, and its purpose;
How many words are there in a “detailed description of the automated decision system”, and I’m guessing the wording has to be something a consumer might be expected to understand. It would take a book to describe most systems, but I suspect that a page or two is what the Act’s proposers have in mind.
(B) an assessment of the relative benefits and costs of the automated decision system in light of its purpose, taking into account relevant factors, including—
Whose “benefits and costs”? Is the Act requiring that companies do a cost benefit analysis of their own projects? What are the benefits to the customer, compared to a company not using such a computerized approach? The main one I can think of is that the customer gets offered a service that would probably be too expensive to offer if the analysis was done manually.
The potential costs to the customer are listed next:
(i) data minimization practices;
(ii) the duration for which personal information and the results of the automated decision system are stored;
(iii) what information about the automated decision system is available to consumers;
This act seems to be more about issues around data retention, privacy, and customers having the right to find out what data companies have about them
(iv) the extent to which consumers have access to the results of the automated decision system and may correct or object to its results; and
(v) the recipients of the results of the automated decision system;
What might the results be? Yes/No, on a load/job application decision, product recommendations are a few.
Some more potential costs to the customer:
(C) an assessment of the risks posed by the automated decision system to the privacy or security of personal information of consumers and the risks that the automated decision system may result in or contribute to inaccurate, unfair, biased, or discriminatory decisions impacting consumers; and
What is an “unfair” or “biased” decision? Machine learning finds patterns in data; when is a pattern in data considered to be unfair or biased?
In the UK, the sex discrimination act has resulted in car insurance companies not being able to offer women cheaper insurance than men (because women have less costly accidents). So the application form does not contain a gender question. But the applicants first name often provides a big clue, as to their gender. So a similar Act in the UK would require that computer-based insurance quote generation systems did not make use of information on the applicant’s first name. There is other, less reliable, information that could be used to estimate gender, e.g., height, plays sport, etc.
Lots of very hard questions to be answered here.