Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11855v1
• Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 19:45:30 GMT
• Title: Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits
• Authors: Petros Terzis, Michael Veale, Noëlle Gaumann,
• Abstract summary: Digital Services Act (DSA) and Online Safety Act (OSA) have established the framework within which technology corporations and (traditional) auditors will develop the practice' of algorithmic auditing. This paper systematically reviews the auditing provisions in the DSA and the OSA in light of observations from the emerging industry of algorithmic auditing. We warn that ambitious research ideas and technical projects of/for algorithmic auditing may end up crashed by the standardising grip of traditional auditors.
• Score: 1.3654846342364302
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: For almost a decade now, scholarship in and beyond the ACM FAccT community has been focusing on novel and innovative ways and methodologies to audit the functioning of algorithmic systems. Over the years, this research idea and technical project has matured enough to become a regulatory mandate. Today, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Online Safety Act (OSA) have established the framework within which technology corporations and (traditional) auditors will develop the `practice' of algorithmic auditing thereby presaging how this `ecosystem' will develop. In this paper, we systematically review the auditing provisions in the DSA and the OSA in light of observations from the emerging industry of algorithmic auditing. Who is likely to occupy this space? What are some political and ethical tensions that are likely to arise? How are the mandates of `independent auditing' or `the evaluation of the societal context of an algorithmic function' likely to play out in practice? By shaping the picture of the emerging political economy of algorithmic auditing, we draw attention to strategies and cultures of traditional auditors that risk eroding important regulatory pillars of the DSA and the OSA. Importantly, we warn that ambitious research ideas and technical projects of/for algorithmic auditing may end up crashed by the standardising grip of traditional auditors and/or diluted within a complex web of (sub-)contractual arrangements, diverse portfolios, and tight timelines.

Related papers

• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Open Problems in Technical AI Governance [93.89102632003996]
  Technical AI governance refers to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI. This paper is intended as a resource for technical researchers or research funders looking to contribute to AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T21:13:56Z)
• Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches [0.0]
  AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. Different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism should be the interlinking of these available approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T12:49:58Z)
• A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems [2.2342503377379725]
  We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework. We argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that harms and uphold human values. We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T14:38:54Z)
• Regulation and NLP (RegNLP): Taming Large Language Models [51.41095330188972]
  We argue how NLP research can benefit from proximity to regulatory studies and adjacent fields. We advocate for the development of a new multidisciplinary research space on regulation and NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T09:22:40Z)
• Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem [0.971392598996499]
  We provide the first comprehensive field scan of the AI audit ecosystem. We identify emerging best practices as well as methods and tools that are becoming commonplace. We outline policy recommendations to improve the quality and impact of these audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T01:40:03Z)
• The right to audit and power asymmetries in algorithm auditing [68.8204255655161]
  We elaborate on the challenges and asymmetries mentioned by Sandvig at the IC2S2 2021. We also contribute a discussion of the asymmetries that were not covered by Sandvig. We discuss the implications these asymmetries have for algorithm auditing research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T13:57:41Z)
• Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest [70.02478301291264]
  Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse. Prior studies have used black-box methods to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes. We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T17:32:35Z)
• Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance [3.8997087223115634]
  We discuss the challenges of third party oversight in the current AI landscape. We show that the institutional design of such audits are far from monolithic. We conclude that the turn toward audits alone is unlikely to achieve actual algorithmic accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-09T19:18:47Z)
• An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI [64.54460979588075]
  We examine a notable yet understudied AI design process in the legal domain that took place over a decade ago. We show how an interactive simulation methodology allowed computer scientists and lawyers to become co-designers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-08T15:46:52Z)
• Audit and Assurance of AI Algorithms: A framework to ensure ethical algorithmic practices in Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  U.S. lacks strict legislative prohibitions or specified protocols for measuring damages. From autonomous vehicles and banking to medical care, housing, and legal decisions, there will soon be enormous amounts of algorithms. Governments, businesses, and society would have an algorithm audit, which would have systematic verification that algorithms are lawful, ethical, and secure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-14T15:16:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.