Архив статей журнала
The article contains a comprehensive analysis of the very relevant topic of ensuring transparency and explainability of public administration bodies in the context of an ever-increasing introduction of automated decision-making systems and artificial intelligence systems in their operations. Authors focus on legal, organisational and technical mechanisms designed to implement the principles of transparency and explainability, as well as on challenges to their operation. The purpose is to describe the existing and proposed approaches in a comprehensive and systematic manner, identify the key risks caused by the non-transparency of automated decisionmaking systems, and to evaluate critically the potential that various tools can have to minimise such risks. The methodological basis of the study is general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, system approach), and private-scientific methods of legal science, including legalistic and comparative legal analysis. The work explores the conceptual foundations of the principle of transparency of public administration in the conditions of technology transformation. In particular, the issue of the “black box” that undermines trust in state institutions and creates obstacles to juridical protection, is explored. It analyses preventive (ex ante) legal mechanisms, such as mandatory disclosure of the use of automated decision-making systems, the order and logic of their operation, information on the data used, and the introduction of preaudit, certification and human rights impact assessment procedures. Legal mechanisms for ex post follow-up are reviewed, including the evolving concept of the “right to explanation” of a particular decision, the use of counterfactual explanations, and ensuring that users have access to the data that gave rise to a particular automated decision. The authors pay particular attention to the inextricable link between legal requirements, and institutional and technical solutions. The main conclusions are that none of the mechanisms under review are universally applicable. The necessary effect may only be reached through their comprehensive application, adaptation to the specific context and level of risk, and close integration of legal norms with technical standards and practical tools. The study highlights the need to further improve laws aimed at detailing the responsibilities of developers and operators of the automated decision-making system, and to foster a culture of transparency and responsibility to maintain public administration accountability in the interests of society and every citizen.
The development of neurotechnologies is now at a critical point where direct readout and modulation of brain activity has passed from test studies to business applications, only to urgently require adequate legal and technological guarantees. The relevance of this study is prompted by the rapid development of the fifth generation brain-computer interface (BCI 5.0), a technology that provides unprecedented potential of direct access to neural processes while at the same time creating principally new threats to digital rights of individuals. The existing legal mechanisms have turned out to be inadequate for regulating altogether new risks of manipulating consciousness, unauthorized access to neural data and compromised cognitive autonomy. The study is focused on legal and technological mechanisms for protection of digital rights in the context of introducing the fifth generation neural interface technologies including analysis of regulatory gaps, technical vulnerabilities and possible security guarantees. Methodologically, the study is based on the multidisciplinary approach bringing together neuroscience, law and information technology, and on the comparative analysis of regulatory framework and inductive inference of specific regulatory mechanisms. The main hypothesis is: legacy regulatory mechanisms for data protection in biometric and telecommunication technologies are structurally inadequate for BCI 5.0 while digital rights could be protected only by a hybrid system combining special provisions with technological guarantees via mechanisms of computational law. The author puts forward a minimum set of viable security and confidentiality standards, comprehensive cryptography and blockchain-based ap plications, as well as detailed legislative advice for ethical and safe neurotechnological development with secure guarantees of fundamental human rights in the digital age. Findings of the study are of considerable practical value for legislators, those involved in the development of neurotechnologies, regulatory bodies and advocacy organizations by proposing specific evidence-based tools and mechanisms to strike an effective balance between the innovative development and the imperatives of protecting human dignity, mental autonomy and cognitive freedom.