Habeas Data, Habemus Algorithms
Algorithmic Intervention in Public Interest Decision-Making in Colombia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/lstr.v13i2.34113Keywords:
Algorithms. Discursive Technocentrism. Marginalization. Digital State. Globalization.Abstract
[Purpose] Automated decision-making and algorithmic governance are increasingly implemented in Latin America in order to improve efficiency in public institutions. However, regulatory frameworks are limited, and the uncritical adoption of technological solutions might undermine fundamental rights, especially of marginalized and vulnerable groups.
[Methodology] The article explores two cases of automated decision-making in the Colombian public sector from a social justice perspective. It also outlines current debates on the regulation of artificial intelligence and algorithmic governance at the global level.
[Findings] The article shows that the techno-optimistic discourse on the improvement of decision-making through the adoption of algorithms and artificial intelligence ignores the implications in terms of fundamental rights. This leads to the adoption of technologies without the necessary transparency and policy debates.
[Practical Implications] The outline of current debates in other regions could inform policy debates in Colombia and Latin America. They provide some guidelines on how to prevent some of the most serious pitfalls of automated decision-making in the public sector.
[Originality] While most of the debates on automated decision-making focus on the Global North, this article explores two cases from Colombia and discusses the necessary policy debates on algorithmic governance in Latin America.
Downloads
References
ALSTON, P. Brief by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights as Amicus Curiae in the of NJCM c.s./De Staat der Nederlanden (SyRI) before the District Court of The Hague (case number: C/09/550982/HA ZA 18/ 388). United Nations. 2019.
ALSTON, P. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. United Nations. 2019.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL e ACCESS NOW. The Toronto Declaration: Protecting the right to equality and non-discrimination in machine learning systems. 2018.
ARCHIBUGI, D.; IAMMARINO, S. The globalization of technological innovation: definition and evidence. Review of International Political Economy, v. 9, n. 1, p. 98-122, 2002.
BARNETT, J.; TRELEAVEN, P. Algorithmic Dispute Resolution””The Automation of Professional Dispute Resolution Using AI and Blockchain Technologies. The Computer Journal, v. 61, n. 3, p. 399”“408, March 2018. ISSN 10.1093.
BATHAEE, Y. The artificial black box and the failure of Intent and causation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, v. 31, n. 2, p. 889-938, 2018.
BERGSTEIN, B. MIT Technology Review. MIT Technology Review, 19 February 2020. Disponivel em: <https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/19/868178/what-ai-still-cant-do/>. Acesso em: 17 March 2020.
BODÓ, B. et al. Tackling the Algorithmic Control Crisis - the Technical, Legal and Ethical Challenges of Research into Algorithmic Agents. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, v. 19, p. 133-180, 2018.
BOYD, D., e CRAWFORD, K.. Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, vol. 15, n. 5, p. 662-679. 2012.
CONGRESO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA. Ley 270 de 1996. Bogotá. 1996.
CONGRESO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA. Ley 1266 de 2008. Bogotá. 2008.
CONGRESO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA. Ley 1581 de 2012. Bogota. 2012.
CONPES. Declaración de importancia estratégica del Sistema de Identificación de Potenciales Beneficiarios (SISBÉN IV). Documento 3877. 5 de diciembre de 2016.
CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL. Sentencia T-716/17. MP: Carlos Bernal Pulido. 2017.
CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL. Informe rendición de cuentas (Febrero 2019- Febrero 2020). Corte Constitucional. [S.l.]. 2020.
CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL. Rendición de cuentas, 2020. Disponivel em: <https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/micrositios/rendiciondecuentas/participaciones.php>. Acesso em: 20 March 2020.
DE FINE LICHT, K., & DE FINE LICHT, J. Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making. AI & SOCIETY, p. 1-10. 2020.
DEPARTAMENTO NACIONAL DE PLANEACIÓN. CONPES 3877 de 2016. 2016.
DEPARTAMENTO NACIONAL DE PLANEACIÓN, 2017. Disponivel em: <https://www.dnp.gov.co/Paginas/Arranca-el-nuevo-Sisb%C3%A9n.aspx>. Acesso em: 20 March 2020.
DEPARTAMENTO NACIONAL DE PLANEACIÓN. Respuesta de derecho de petición con número de radicado 20206000168992. Bogotá. 2020.
EUROPEAN COMISSION. Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). 2017.
EUROPEAN COMISSION. Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679. 2018.
EUROPEAN COMISSION. Guidelines on transparency of Regulation 2016/679. 2018a.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. General Data Protection Regulation. 2018.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Understanding algorithmic decision-making: Opportunities and challenges. Brussels. 2019. (ISBN 978-92-846-3506-1).
FAIRCLOUGH, N. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge. 2013
FLÓREZ ROJAS, M. L.; VARGAS LEAL, J. El impacto de herramientas de inteligencia artificial: un análisis en el sector público en Colombia. Inteligencia Artificial en América Latina y el Caribe. Ética, Gobernanza y Políticas., Buenos Aires, 2020.
FUNDACIÓN KARISMA. ¡No pueden ser tantos pobres! Bogotá. 2019.
FUNDACIÓN KARISMA. Experimentando con la pobreza, el SISBÉN y los proyectos de analítica de datos en Colombia. Bogotá. 2019.
GOBIERNO DE COLOMBIA. Datos abiertos, 2019. Disponivel em: <https://www.datos.gov.co/Justicia-y-Derecho/SentenciasFm-Corte-Constitucional-2019/5wc9-ajax/data>. Acesso em: 8 April 2020.
GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND. Algorithm assessment report. 2018.
HARDING, S. (2011). The postcolonial science and technology studies reader. Durham: Duke University Press.
IALAB. Presentación de Prometea en la Corte Constitucional de Colombia, 2019. Disponivel em: <https://ialab.com.ar/portfolio-items/prometea-en-el-maximo-tribunal-judicial-de-colombia/?portfolioCats=82>. Acesso em: 12 March 2020.
IALAB. Prometea: Inteligencia Artificial para transformar organizaciones públicas. Primera. ed. Buenos Aires: ASTREA SRL, 2019. ISBN 2362 ”“ 3217.
KIRKPATRICK, K. It's not the algorithm, it's the data. Communications of the Acm, v. 60, n. 2, 2017. ISSN 10.1145.
LEVITSKY, S. Latin America's shifting politics: Democratic survival and weakness. Journal of Democracy, vol. 29, no 4, p. 102-113. 2018.
MEDINA, E., MARQUES, I. D. C., HOLMES, C., e CUETO, M. Beyond imported magic: essays on Science, Technology and Society in Latin America. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2014.
MILANOVICÌ, B. Global inequality : A new approach for the age of globalization. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2016. ISSN 10.4159.
MOROZOV, E. To save everything, click here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. PublicAffairs. 2014.
NOBLE, S. The future of knowledge in the public. Conclusion: Algorithms of Oppression.. In: NOBLE, S. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU Press, 2018. Cap. 5.
PASQUALE, F. The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015.
PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA. Decreto 1377 de 2013. 2013.
QUIJANO, R. Jóvenes e imaginarios sobre inteligencia artificial en México. In: BROSSI, L.; DODDS, T.; PASSERON, E. Inteligencia artificial y bienestar de las juventudes en América Latina. Santiago de Chile: LOM Ediciones, 2019. ISBN 978-956-00-1237-1.
RAMSAY, S. Reading Machines: Towards an Algorithmic Criticism. University of Illinois Press, 2010.
RE, R.; SOLOW-NIEDERMAN, A. Developing Artificially Intelligent Justice. Stanford Technology Law Review, May 2019.
RED IBEROAMERICANA DE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS. Estándares de protección de datos personales. 2017.
RED IBEROAMERICANA DE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS. Recomendaciones generales para el tratamiento de datos en la Inteligencia Artificial. 2019.
REISMAN, D. et al. Algorithmic Impact Assessment: a practical framework for public agency accountability. 2018.
REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA. Constitución Política. 1991.
THE TECHNOLAWGIST. The Technolawgist, 2020. Disponivel em: <https://www.thetechnolawgist.com/2020/02/12/derechos-humanos-en-un-mundo-de-algoritmos-la-sentencia-historica-que-ata-en-corto-la-implantacion-de-modelos-opacos/>.
TRIBUNAL DE LA HAYA. Sentencia del 05 de febrero de 2020. 2020.
WACHTER, S. Data protection in the age of big data. Nature Electronics, January 2019.
WACHTER, S.; MITTELSTADT, B.; LUCIANO FLORIDI. Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, v. 7, n. 2, p. 76”“99, May 2017.
WAGNER, B. Liable, but not in control? ensuring meaningful human agency in automated decision-making systems. Policy & Internet, v. 11, n. 1, p. 104-122, 2019.
WORLD WIDE WEB FOUNDATION. Algoritmos e Inteligencia Artificial en Latinoamérica: Un Estudio de implementaciones por parte de Gobiernos en Argentina y Uruguay. 2018.
ZERILLI, J. et al. Transparency in algorithmic and human decision-making: Is there a double standard? Philosophy & Technology, v. 32, n. 4, p. 661-683, 2019.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Law, State and Telecommunications Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting this paper to the Law, State and Telecommunications Review,
I hereby declare that I agree to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
