Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Humans Forget, Machines Remember: Artificial Intelligence And The Right To Be Forgotten, Tiffany Li, Eduard Fosch Villaronga, Peter Kieseberg
Humans Forget, Machines Remember: Artificial Intelligence And The Right To Be Forgotten, Tiffany Li, Eduard Fosch Villaronga, Peter Kieseberg
Faculty Scholarship
To understand the Right to be Forgotten in context of artificial intelligence, it is necessary to first delve into an overview of the concepts of human and AI memory and forgetting. Our current law appears to treat human and machine memory alike – supporting a fictitious understanding of memory and forgetting that does not comport with reality. (Some authors have already highlighted the concerns on the perfect remembering.) This Article will examine the problem of AI memory and the Right to be Forgotten, using this example as a model for understanding the failures of current privacy law to reflect the …
Promoting Innovation While Preventing Discrimination: Policy Goals For The Scored Society, Danielle K. Citron, Frank Pasquale
Promoting Innovation While Preventing Discrimination: Policy Goals For The Scored Society, Danielle K. Citron, Frank Pasquale
Faculty Scholarship
There are several normative theories of jurisprudence supporting our critique of the scored society, which complement the social theory and political economy presented in our 2014 article on that topic in the Washington Law Review. This response to Professor Tal Zarsky clarifies our antidiscrimination argument while showing that is only one of many bases for the critique of scoring practices. The concerns raised by Big Data may exceed the capacity of extant legal doctrines. Addressing the potential injustice may require the hard work of legal reform.
Government Speech 2.0, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton
Government Speech 2.0, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton
Faculty Scholarship
New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these …