欧盟环境法之预防原则在自动化决策当中的应用及对我国的启示
The Application of the Precautionary Principle of EU Environmental Law in Automated Decision-Making and Its Implications for China
摘要: 随着自动化决策技术的发展，其运行模式更加接近于由机器在数字环境中自行作出决策行为，并对人类生活产生直接影响，且此种影响难以被预见。该模式类似于人类对自然环境产生了不可预知的损害。基于损害程度的不可预知性，可将其与欧盟环境法中的预防原则的相似性进行比较分析。欧盟的《通用数据保护条例》(General Data Protection Regulation，以下简称GDPR)中，已然将欧盟环境法中某些措施予以吸收借鉴，例如数据保护的影响性评估手段(Data Protection Impact Assess-ment，以下简称DPIA)。基于分析预防原则对欧盟数字立法的影响，对促进我国《个人信息保护法》的修改和完善具有积极影响。
Abstract:
With the development of automated decision-making technology, its operating mode is closer tomachines making decisions on their own in a digital environment and having a direct impact on human life, and this impact is difficult to predict. This mode is similar to humans causing unpredictable damage to the natural environment. Due to the unpredictability of the degree of damage, it can be compared and analyzed with the similarity of the precautionary principle in EU environmental law. In the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), some measures in EU environmental law have been absorbed and borrowed, such as the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Based on the analysis of the impact of the precautionary principle on EU digital legislation, it has a positive impact on promoting the revision and improvement of China’s Personal Information Protection Law.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
唐林垚. “脱离算法自动化决策权”的虚幻承诺[J]. 东方法学, 2020(6): 18-33.
|
|
[2]
|
中国政法大学互联网金融法律研究院. GDPR中文版[EB/OL].
https://www.cnblogs.com/ostin/p/9295762.html, 2023-03-08.
|
|
[3]
|
Goodman, B. and Flaxman, S. (2016) European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a “Right to Explanation”. AI Magazine, 38, 50-57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|
|
[4]
|
Malgieri, G. and Comandé, G. (2017) Sensitive-by-Distance: Qua-si-Health Data in the Algorithmic Era. Information & Communications Technology Law, 26, 229-249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|
|
[5]
|
Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M. and Floridi, L. (2018) Artificial Intelligence and the “Good Society”: The US, EU, and UK Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 505-528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
|
|
[6]
|
Malgieri, G. and Comandé, G. (2017) Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7, 243-265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|
|
[7]
|
Selbst, A.D. and Powles, J. (2017) Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation. International Data Privacy Law, 7, 233-242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|
|
[8]
|
European Court (1992) Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61990CJ0002
|
|
[9]
|
陈亚芸. EU和WTO预防原则解释和适用比较研究[J]. 现代法学, 2012, 34(6): 146-157.
|
|
[10]
|
(德)乌尔里希∙贝克. 风险社会[M]. 南京 译林出版社, 2004: 102-105.
|
|
[11]
|
郑智航. 平衡论视角下个人免受自动化决策的法律保护[J]. 政法论丛, 2022(4): 94-105.
|
|
[12]
|
孙建丽. 算法自动化决策风险的法律规制研究[J]. 法治研究, 2019(4): 108-117.
|
|
[13]
|
陈飏, 裴亚楠. 算法决策风险防范的法制路径研究[J]. 重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 33(3): 72-81.
|