为加强欧洲(不)安全而前瞻性地实施人工智能:自动旅行授权决定的推理挑战

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Computer Law & Security Review Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105995
Erzsébet Csatlós
{"title":"为加强欧洲(不)安全而前瞻性地实施人工智能:自动旅行授权决定的推理挑战","authors":"Erzsébet Csatlós","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The <em>European Travel Information and Authorisation System</em>, along with the automated decision-making system for immigration filtering, is soon to become a guardian controlling entry into Europe. In the digital realm of issuing travel authorisations, a central question arises: does streamlining the process of using an authoritative decision through IT tools and artificial intelligence simplify administrative decision-making, or does it raise more profound legal issues? The pressing question is whether algorithms will ultimately determine human destinies, or if we have not reached that point yet. This paper examines the set of rules for making a decision on the refusal of a travel permit, considering the obligations tied to providing <em>reasons</em> for such decisions. It emphasizes that the rationale should be built upon a combination of factual and legal foundations, which would entail revealing data linked to profiling. While explicit rights for explanations might not be granted, having substantial information gives the ability to contest decisions. To ensure decisions are well-founded, the methodology used for profiling must support these determinations, as general system descriptions are inadequate for clarifying specific cases. Therefore, the paper concludes that the complex interaction between the ETIAS screening process, data protection laws, and national security concerns presents a challenging situation for procedural rights. Fundamental rights, such as accessing records and receiving decision explanations, clash with the necessity to safeguard national security and build a so-called security union for Europe, it establishes a feeling of insecurity about respect for EU values.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prospective implementation of ai for enhancing European (in)security: Challenges in reasoning of automated travel authorization decisions\",\"authors\":\"Erzsébet Csatlós\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105995\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The <em>European Travel Information and Authorisation System</em>, along with the automated decision-making system for immigration filtering, is soon to become a guardian controlling entry into Europe. In the digital realm of issuing travel authorisations, a central question arises: does streamlining the process of using an authoritative decision through IT tools and artificial intelligence simplify administrative decision-making, or does it raise more profound legal issues? The pressing question is whether algorithms will ultimately determine human destinies, or if we have not reached that point yet. This paper examines the set of rules for making a decision on the refusal of a travel permit, considering the obligations tied to providing <em>reasons</em> for such decisions. It emphasizes that the rationale should be built upon a combination of factual and legal foundations, which would entail revealing data linked to profiling. While explicit rights for explanations might not be granted, having substantial information gives the ability to contest decisions. To ensure decisions are well-founded, the methodology used for profiling must support these determinations, as general system descriptions are inadequate for clarifying specific cases. Therefore, the paper concludes that the complex interaction between the ETIAS screening process, data protection laws, and national security concerns presents a challenging situation for procedural rights. Fundamental rights, such as accessing records and receiving decision explanations, clash with the necessity to safeguard national security and build a so-called security union for Europe, it establishes a feeling of insecurity about respect for EU values.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000621\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000621","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲旅行信息和授权系统以及移民过滤自动决策系统很快将成为控制进入欧洲的监护人。在签发旅行授权的数字领域,一个核心问题出现了:通过信息技术工具和人工智能简化使用权威决定的过程,是简化了行政决策,还是引发了更深刻的法律问题?当务之急是,算法是否会最终决定人类的命运,或者我们是否还没有到那一步。本文研究了拒绝旅行许可决定的一系列规则,并考虑了为此类决定提供理由的相关义务。本文强调,理由应建立在事实和法律基础的结合之上,这就需要披露与特征分析有关的数据。虽然可能不会赋予明确的解释权,但掌握大量信息就有能力对决定提出质疑。为确保决定有理有据,貌相所使用的方法必须支持这些决定,因为一般的系统描述不足以澄清具体案件。因此,本文的结论是,ETIAS 筛选程序、数据保护法和国家安全关切之间复杂的互动关系给程序性权利带来了挑战。基本权利,如查阅记录和获得决定解释,与保障国家安全和建立所谓的欧洲安全联盟的必要性相冲突,这使人们对尊重欧盟价值观产生了不安全感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prospective implementation of ai for enhancing European (in)security: Challenges in reasoning of automated travel authorization decisions

The European Travel Information and Authorisation System, along with the automated decision-making system for immigration filtering, is soon to become a guardian controlling entry into Europe. In the digital realm of issuing travel authorisations, a central question arises: does streamlining the process of using an authoritative decision through IT tools and artificial intelligence simplify administrative decision-making, or does it raise more profound legal issues? The pressing question is whether algorithms will ultimately determine human destinies, or if we have not reached that point yet. This paper examines the set of rules for making a decision on the refusal of a travel permit, considering the obligations tied to providing reasons for such decisions. It emphasizes that the rationale should be built upon a combination of factual and legal foundations, which would entail revealing data linked to profiling. While explicit rights for explanations might not be granted, having substantial information gives the ability to contest decisions. To ensure decisions are well-founded, the methodology used for profiling must support these determinations, as general system descriptions are inadequate for clarifying specific cases. Therefore, the paper concludes that the complex interaction between the ETIAS screening process, data protection laws, and national security concerns presents a challenging situation for procedural rights. Fundamental rights, such as accessing records and receiving decision explanations, clash with the necessity to safeguard national security and build a so-called security union for Europe, it establishes a feeling of insecurity about respect for EU values.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
期刊最新文献
Procedural fairness in automated asylum procedures: Fundamental rights for fundamental challenges Asia-Pacific developments An Infrastructural Brussels Effect: The translation of EU Law into the UK's digital borders Mapping interpretations of the law in online content moderation in Germany A European right to end-to-end encryption?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1