Michael A. Livermore (University of Virginia School of Law), Peter Beling (University of Virginia, Dept. of System & Information Engineering), Keith Carlson (Dartmouth College), Faraz Dadgostari (University of Virginia), Mauricio Guim (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) – Law School), and Daniel Rockmore (Dartmouth College – Department of Mathematics; Dartmouth College – Department of Computer Science) have posted “Law Search In The Age Of The Algorithm” (2020 MICH. ST. L. REV. 1183) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The process of searching for relevant legal materials is fundamental to legal reasoning. However, despite its enormous practical and theoretical importance, law search has not been given significant attention by scholars. In this Article, we define the problem of law search and examine the consequences of new technologies capable of automating this core lawyerly task. We introduce a theory of law search in which legal relevance is a sociological phenomenon that leads to convergence over a shared set of legal materials and explore the normative stakes of law search. We examine ways in which law scholars can understand empirically the phenomenon of law search, argue that computational modeling is a valuable epistemic tool in this domain, and report the results from a multi-year, interdisciplinary effort to develop an advanced law search algorithm based on human-generated data. Finally, we explore how policymakers can manage the challenges posed by new machine learning-based search technologies.
Jolyon Ford (ANU College of Law) has posted “Ethical AI: The Role of Law and Regulation” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This uses the Australian example to offer a far broader critique of the prevailing trend globally of resorting to ethics-based frameworks as the principal modality for governing the responsible development and use of AI. It is critical of the relative paucity, in the context of this trend, of approaches with respect to governing private and corporate activity that are adequately and appropriately grounded in law and regulation. Section Two below charts the proliferation of ethical frameworks in this area. Section Three identifies the missing governance dimension in this approach: how is it envisaged that the broad ethical concepts or principles (e.g. ‘fairness’, ‘transparency’) advanced in prevailing frameworks are to be connected, if at all, to mechanisms for giving effect to those principles or for providing consequences for lack of adherence to these? What is at stake in the prevailing approach – why does it matter that this piece of the governance puzzle appears, for the most part, to be missing? Section Four explores some of the broad considerations that might shape policy choices on appropriate regulatory approaches.
Jessica Morley (Oxford Internet Institute), Caio C.V. Machado (University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute), Christopher Burr (University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute), Josh Cowls (University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute), Indra Joshi (NHSX), Mariarosaria Taddeo (University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute), and Luciano Floridi (University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute) have posted “The Ethics of AI in Health Care: A Mapping Review” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This article presents a mapping review of the literature concerning the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. The goal of this review is to summarise current debates and identify open questions for future research. Five literature databases were searched to support the following research question: how can the primary ethical risks presented by AI-health be categorised, and what issues must policymakers, regulators and developers consider in order to be ‘ethically mindful?. A series of screening stages were carried out—for example, removing articles that focused on digital health in general (e.g. data sharing, data access, data privacy, surveillance/nudging, consent, ownership of health data, evidence of efficacy)—yielding a total of 156 papers that were included in the review.
Elizaveta Gromova (South Ural State University) has posted “Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in BRICS and the European Union” (BRICS Law Journal 2021 8(1): 86-115) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Global digitization and the emergence of Artificial Intelligence-based technologies pose challenges for all countries. The BRICS and European Union countries are no exception. BRICS as well as the European Union seek to strengthen their positions as leading actors on the world stage. At the present time, an essential means of doing so is for BRICS and the EU to implement smart policy and create suitable conditions for the development of digital technologies, including AI. For this reason, one of the most important tasks for BRICS and the EU is to develop an adequate approach to the regulation of AI-based technologies. This research paper is an analysis of the current approaches to the regulation of AI at the BRICS group level, in each of the BRICS countries, and in the European Union. The analysis is based on the application of comparative and formal juridical analysis of the legislation of the selected countries on AI and other digital technologies. The results of the analysis lead the authors to conclude that it is necessary to design ageneral approach to the regulation of these technologies for the BRICS countries similar to the approach chosen in the EU (the trustworthy approach) and to upgrade this legislation to achieve positive effects from digital transformation. The authors offer several suggestions for optimization of the provisions of the legislation, including designing a model legal act in the sphere of AI.
Graham Greenleaf (University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law) has posted “Global Tables of Data Privacy Laws and Bills (7th Ed, January 2021)” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This 2021 7th edition of the Tables detailing data privacy laws in all countries that have such laws or official bills, contains two parts: – the Global Table of Countries with Data Privacy Laws (now 145 countries); and the Global Table of Official Data Privacy Bills (now 23 countries).
These Tables are regarded as the most reliable periodic list of data privacy laws by many organisations across the world.
The data in the Tables is as known at 31 January 2021. The Tables were originally published in (2021) 169 Privacy Laws & Business International Report (PLBIR) pgs 6-19. New editions are published approximately every two years..
The data in the Tables is analysed in a series of three articles by me:
• ‘Global data privacy laws 2021: Despite COVID delays, 145 laws show GDPR dominance’ (2021) 169 PLBIR 1, 3-5,
• ‘Global data privacy laws 2021: Uncertain paths for international standards’ (2021) 169 PLBIR 23-27, and
• ‘Global data privacy 2021: DPAs joining networks are the rule’ (2021) 170 PLBIR 23-27 (will be available on SSRN in due course).
Copies of all legislation listed in the Laws Table are in the National Data Privacy Legislation database, part of the free access Global Data Protection, Privacy & Surveillance Law Library, located on the World Legal Information Institute (WorldLII).