An official website of the United States government
In widely used sociological descriptions of how accountability is structured through institutions, an “actor” (e.g., the developer) is accountable to a “forum” (e.g., regulatory agencies) empowered to pass judgements on and demand changes from the actor or enforce sanctions. However, questions about structuring accountability persist: why and how is a forum compelled to keep making demands of the actor when such demands are called for? To whom is a forum accountable in the performance of its responsibilities, and how can its practices and decisions be contested? In the context of algorithmic accountability, we contend that a robust accountability regime requires a triadic relationship, wherein the forum is also accountable to another entity: the public(s). Typically, as is the case with environmental impact assessments, public(s) make demands upon the forum's judgements and procedures through the courts, thereby establishing a minimum standard of due diligence. However, core challenges relating to: (1) lack of documentation, (2) difficulties in claiming standing, and (3) struggles around admissibility of expert evidence on and achieving consensus over the workings of algorithmic systems in adversarial proceedings prevent the public from approaching the courts when faced with algorithmic harms. In this paper, we demonstrate that the courts are the primary route—and the primary roadblock—in the pursuit of redress for algorithmic harms. Courts often find algorithmic harms non-cognizable and rarely require developers to address material claims of harm. To address the core challenges of taking algorithms to court, we develop a relational approach to algorithmic accountability that emphasizes not what the actors do nor the results of their actions, but rather how interlocking relationships of accountability are constituted in a triadic relationship between actors, forums, and public(s). As is the case in other regulatory domains, we believe that impact assessments (and similar accountability documentation) can provide the grounds for contestation between these parties, but only when that triad is structured such that the public(s) are able to cohere around shared experiences and interests, contest the outcomes of algorithmic systems that affect their lives, and make demands upon the other parties. Where courts now find algorithmic harms non-cognizable, an impact assessment regime can potentially create procedural rights to protect substantive rights of the public(s). This would require algorithmic accountability policies currently under consideration to provide the public(s) with adequate standing in courts, and opportunities to access and contest the actor's documentation and the forum's judgments.
more »
« less
SAMPL: Scalable Auditability of Monitoring Processes using Public Ledgers
Organized surveillance, especially by governments poses a major challenge to individual privacy, due to the resources governments have at their disposal, and the possibility of overreach. Given the impact of invasive monitoring, in most democratic countries, government surveillance is, in theory, monitored and subject to public oversight to guard against violations. In practice, there is a difficult fine balance between safeguarding individual’s privacy rights and not diluting the efficacy of national security investigations, as exemplified by reports on government surveillance programs that have caused public controversy, and have been challenged by civil and privacy rights organizations. Surveillance is generally conducted through a mechanism where federal agencies obtain a warrant from a federal or state judge (e.g., the US FISA court, Supreme Court in Canada) to subpoena a company or service-provider (e.g., Google, Microsoft) for their customers’ data. The courts provide annual statistics on the requests (accepted, rejected), while the companies provide annual transparency reports for public auditing. However, in practice, the statistical information provided by the courts and companies is at a very high level, generic, is released after-the-fact, and is inadequate for auditing the operations. Often this is attributed to the lack of scalable mechanisms for reporting and transparent auditing. In this paper, we present SAMPL, a novel auditing framework which leverages cryptographic mechanisms, such as zero knowledge proofs, Pedersen commitments, Merkle trees, and public ledgers to create a scalable mechanism for auditing electronic surveillance processes involving multiple actors. SAMPL is the first framework that can identify the actors (e.g., agencies and companies) that violate the purview of the court orders. We experimentally demonstrate the scalability for SAMPL for handling concurrent monitoring processes without undermining their secrecy and auditability.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10130859
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Session 9E: Web Censorship and Auditing
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 2249 to 2266
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This paper presents an in-depth analysis of patterns and trends in the open-source software (OSS) contributions by the U.S. federal government agencies. OSS is a unique category of computer software notable for its publicly accessible source code and the rights it provides for modification and distribution for any purpose. Prompted by the Federal Source Code Policy (USCIO, 2016), Code.gov was established as a platform to facilitate the sharing of custom-developed software across various federal government agencies. This study leverages data from Code.gov, which catalogs OSS projects developed and shared by government agencies, and enhances this data with detailed development and contributor information from GitHub. By adopting a cost estimation methodology that is consistent with the U.S. national accounting framework for software investment proposed in Korkmaz et al. (2024), this research provides annual estimates of investment in OSS by government agencies for the 2009–2021 period. The findings indicate a significant investment by the federal government in OSS, with the 2021 investment estimated at around $407 million. This study not only sheds light on the government’s role in fostering OSS development but also offers a valuable framework for assessing the scope and value of OSS initiatives within the public sector.more » « less
-
Federal court records have been available online for nearly a quarter century, yet they remain frustratingly inaccessible to the public. This is due to two primary barriers: (1) the federal government's prohibitively high fees to access the records at scale and (2) the unwieldy state of the records themselves, which are mostly text documents scattered across numerous systems. Official datasets produced by the judiciary, as well as third-party data collection efforts, are incomplete, inaccurate, and similarly inaccessible to the public. The result is a de facto data blackout that leaves an entire branch of the federal government shielded from empirical scrutiny. In this Essay, we introduce the SCALES project: a new data-gathering and data-organizing initiative to right this wrong. SCALES is an online platform that we built to assemble federal court records, systematically organize them and extract key information, and-most importantly-make them freely available to the public. The database currently covers all federal cases initiated in 2016 and 2017, and we intend to expand this coverage to all years. This Essay explains the shortcomings of existing systems (such as the federal government's PACER platform), how we built SCALES to overcome these inadequacies, and how anyone can use SCALES to empirically analyze the operations of the federal courts. We offer a series of exploratory findings to showcase the depth and breadth of the SCALES platform. Our goal is for SCALES to serve as a public resource where practitioners, policymakers, and scholars can conduct empirical legal research and improve the operations of the federal courts. For more information, visit www.scales-okn.org.more » « less
-
Jacobson v. Massachusetts has long stood for the proposition that courts should generally uphold the government’s public health policies even when they incidentally infringe constitutional rights protections. But the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this traditional understanding, as many federal courts struck down or enjoined state and local pandemic-response policies, downplaying the applicability of Jacobson. Meanwhile, prominent legal scholars argued that judicial deference premised on Jacobson should be completely abandoned. This article argues that Jacobson must be reconsidered in light of COVID-19, but its posture of deference should not be abandoned. Instead, this article proposes a new theory of “Public Health Deference,” which is the deference that courts should afford to the government’s pandemic-response policies. This article argues that Public Health Deference should be premised on the quality of the processes by which the government creates and implements public health policies, even during an emergency. Courts should not blindly defer to the government’s pandemic response; instead, they should evaluate the government’s decision-making processes to ensure that they meet standards of transparency, accountability, public justification, and community engagement.more » « less
-
This article draws on a case study of how Massachusetts treatment courts responded to the COVID-19 pandemic to address two intersecting theoretical and policy questions: (1) How do actors who work within criminal legal organizations use the law to solve complex social and political problems? (2) How do organizations working within multiple, fragmented organizational fields respond to an exogenous shock? The findings draw on interviews with eighty-four treatment court judges and practitioners and build from neo-institutional approaches to the study of courts to show that legal actors and organizations pursue pragmatic approaches, strategically adapting to their external environments through buffering, which is protective, and innovation, which is transformative. Each strategy reflects the courts’ autonomy or dependence on other organizations in the criminal legal and social service fields. The findings also provide insight into the social process of legitimation as personnel aligned beliefs with adaptation strategies, shifting understandings of surveillance practices and the utility of sanctions to meet overall court goals.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3354219
