1,721,017 research outputs found
Stay Human. The quest for Responsibility in the Algorithmic Society
Abstract: recent developments of Artificial Intelligence based on machine learning techniques through Big Data raise multiple ethical and legal concerns, all of which ultimately do turn around the issues of responsibility, which is increasingly invoked not as a remedy but as a character which shall shape the whole development process of AI as well as its functioning. The characters of AI, taken in its technical and social role, challenge some established ideas related to human agency, namely responsibility. Recently two scholars like Jack Balkin (director of the Yale Information Society Project he founded on 1997) and Frank Pasquale (author of The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, 2015) proposed “new laws of robotics for the Algorithmic Society” inspired to Isaac Asimov’s ones, but targeting the human agents behind the development and the use of AI. On the other side, Responsible Research and Innovation model has been proposed as a model for the responsible development of AI. Whilst the reference to responsibility is appealing, nevertheless the inflation of its disparate usages may obscure the meaning associated with it. This article wants to contribute to the understanding of the issues behind the idea of preserving the human character of responsibility when confronted to the risks of its dissolution induced by the increasingly relevant roles played by AI in our societies
Il senso della giustizia tra tempo e diritto. Recensione a "Le temps du droit" di François Ost
Voluntary measures, participation and fundamental rights in the governance of research and innovation
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) aims at being a new governance paradigm aiming at steering the innovation process in a participative manner by constructing responsibility as a shared process between innovators and societal stakeholders, rather than a remedy to its failures. In order to achieve those goals, RRI implements a collaborative and inclusive process between innovators and societal stakeholders, widely based on the idea of granting a wider participation of societal actors to the innovation process. The purpose of steering the research and innovation processes through participation of societal actors is one of the distinguishing characteristics of RRI approach, which this way aims at taking into account the increasing political implications of scientific innovation. In order to do so, RRI model promotes governance strategies focusing on actors’ responsibilisation, which make appeal to actors’ capacity of reciprocal commitment towards some common goals not mandated by the law. Whilst voluntary non-binding regulatory approaches seem to be the ‘natural’ way to implement RRI in practice, nevertheless some concern remains about the scope and the limits of the contextual agreements reached each time, in particular their capacity to grant respect to some fundamental values, which are part of the European political and legal culture, and which are at risk to become freely re-negotiable within the RRI context if we base it only on the idea of autonomy, participation and consent. On the contrary, the paper argues that, if it wants to be coherent with its premises, RRI governance model needs to be complemented with a reference to fundamental rights, in order to give normative anchor-points to the confrontations between divergent views and values accompanying the development of technological innovation
"(Pre)caution Improvisation Area". Improvisation and Responsibility in the Practice of the Precautionary Principle
first sight, law and improvisation do not appear to have much in common. Law is (or at least aims to be) the realm of rules and certainty, while improvisation is the realm of unheard sounds and unpredictable patterns. Law allows room for interpretation, but does it allow room for improvisation?
The precautionary principle shapes a prospective form of legal responsibility rather than the traditional retrospective one, designing a responsibility in exercise, which can be included in Herbert Hart's category of “role-responsibility.” Improvisation can be taken as a paradigm explaining the ways in which precaution operates, adding a new dimension to our comprehension of responsibility
Lo spazio europeo dei dati sanitari e il buon cittadino europeo: fare di virtù necessità?
The European Health Data Space (EDHS) is presented as strengthening enabling EU citizens' (digital) rights, in particular as it aims at empowering them to control their own health data whilst at the same time facilitating their secondary use. However, the Regulation proposal issued in 2022, later amended and recently adopted raised various critiques, in particular as it poses serious concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights as well as some fundamental democratic principles and values. The text of the Regulation presents many issues, starting from a patent contradiction between its two main declared aims, namely that of empowering citizens rights over their health data and favoring the secondary use of health data for the benefits of society, as the latter risks to be done at the expenses of the first. Moreover, Several regulation provisions seem to be in contradiction with EU primary and secondary legislation, as well as with some relevant body of soft law. Regarding primary sources, some provisions of the proposal pose concerns with respect to the rights to privacy and data protection as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental rights (art. 7 and 8, respectively) or the balance between public and private interest. Regarding secondary sources, some dispositions overlap and are not clearly coordinated with principles, rules and procedures set out by the GDPR. Regarding relevant soft law bodies, some dispositions are not fully aligned with some of the core principles of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) model promoted by the EU Commission. Moreover, the Regulation does not seem to be fully aligned with the concept of of "data altruism" (which it aims at favoring), given that it foresees the possibility of overriding EU citizens' choices related to health data sharing even against their explicit will (opt-out) by providing alternative grounds of legitimizing health data processing in the name of public good. This article will consider these concerns with a focus on their impact on EU (Digital) Citizenship, in particular considering that 2025 will be the European Year of Digital Citizenship Education
Who are Digital Citizens? Identity, Responsibility and Citizenship in a Datafied Society
Identity, responsibility and citizenship are seriously challenged by datafication, that is, the process by which subjects, objects, and practices are transformed into digital data. This leads to a progressive de-humanization of these dimensions, as their meaning is made in reference to an abstract and disembodied data subject. Connecting their meaning instead to an embodied subject of experience in a digital world makes it possible to reconstruct them so they can provide meaningful references that drive the development of the digital world. Identity, responsibility and digital citizenship will be discussed and connected within the context of the performative theory of digital citizenship proposed by Isin Engin and Evelyn Ruppert. This will then be put in dialogue with the reflections on identity and responsibility proposed by Paul Ricoeur and Herbert Hart
Il principio di precauzione e la governance dell’incertezza
In questo contributo, dopo a) aver sinteticamente ricostruito l’emersione giuridica del principio di precauzione, vorrei b) discutere brevemente la questione della natura giuridica del principio di precauzione, per poi c) esaminare alcune delle implicazioni extragiuridiche del principio, segnatamente mostrando come la logica intrinseca del principio di precauzione implichi una stretta connessione con esigenze e forme proprie di una concezione partecipativa della democrazia
- …
