Page - 211 - in Intelligent Environments 2019 - Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments
Image of the Page - 211 -
Text of the Page - 211 -
knowledge about the people they collect information about and it can use this knowledge
to determine what that audience would likely understand (calculated intelligibility). For
example, a controller collecting the personal data of working professionals can assume
its audience has a higher level of understanding than a controller that obtains the personal
data of children. If controllers are uncertain about the level of intelligibility and trans-
parency of the information and effectiveness of user interfaces/notices/policies etc., they
can test these, for example, through mechanisms such as user panels, readability testing,
formal and informal interactions and dialogue with industry groups, consumer advocacy
groups and regulatory bodies, where appropriate.
If intelligible form would mean to ensure data subjects understanding of the technol-
ogy, we then turn to the difficulty of fully understanding the technology which is already
complex in and of itself. [20] The famous black box algorithms may prevent even data
controllers from understanding what the algorithm is exactly is doing with the personal
data and how it evaluates it. The AI system may receive so many personal data that it may
cause fundamental changes in the way of the algorithms decision-making system which
is not predictable by its creators and in this case, data controllers are somehow bound
with explaining something that they do not even know technically. Not surprisingly, this
is the very nature of the AI, and it is ”not a bug” [21]. Which personal data, from what
source, and in what way it was considered by an algorithm is still a question for many re-
searchers. Research on creating explainable (transparent) AI and accountable algorithms
2are on-going, but until finding a universal solution, data controllers may make up sto-
ries [22] and feed them to data subjects who cannot verify any of the information they
provide. A study measuring Android apps behaviors and their potential non-compliance
level with the companys own privacy statement reveals that almost half of the studied
apps were found potentially inconsistent with the policy they presented and only a small
portion of the apps were found completely consistent with it[23].
The updated guidelines of the Article 29 Working Party on transparency [25] actu-
ally give a clue about preparing information tailored to different audiences, so that the
information could be understandable by each. According to that, data controllers first
should identify the audience, including the factor or age, especially minority, then present
the information. In connection with that, intelligible information means that it should be
understood by the average of the target groups as assessed by the data controller, not by
each of them or not by all of them. This statement remains vague, if the service to be of-
fered is a personalized one developed based on an algorithm learning from personal data.
If the condition is to first evaluate the groups based on criteria such as age, there could
be quite big differences between the understanding level of people even within the same
group. (However, recent experience might show that younger people understand specific
terminology much better than older ones do.) The document also suggests that the level
of intelligibility, not the level of users’ understanding, could be tested with several meth-
ods which still may not ensure every single data subject’s personal characteristics. This
explanation, in our view, should further be revised in line with the characteristics of the
specific AI services.
2Interestingly, accountability has never before been an issue in technological, only in legal terms in light
of institutions, decision-makers. It, however, strongly applies to algorithms as decision-makers, without the AI
being actually qualified as a person in a legal sense. However, the EU introduced the idea of giving them an
electronic personality, and the scientific community has already started assigning principles to AI systems that
have so far only been used or applied to persons.
G.GultekinVarkonyi /Operability of theGDPR’sConsent Rule in Intelligent Systems 211
Intelligent Environments 2019
Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments
- Title
- Intelligent Environments 2019
- Subtitle
- Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments
- Authors
- Andrés Muñoz
- Sofia Ouhbi
- Wolfgang Minker
- Loubna Echabbi
- Miguel Navarro-CĂa
- Publisher
- IOS Press BV
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- German
- License
- CC BY-NC 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-1-61499-983-6
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 416
- Category
- Tagungsbände