,
11 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Many algorithmic systems continue to exhibit bias and errors, yet governments still use them to make life-changing decisions. Our new report with @RaceNYU looks at those taking the fight to court—what’s working, what’s not, and where we need to focus next: ainowinstitute.org/litigatingalgo…
@RaceNYU Recommendation 1: Assess the success of litigation by measuring structural change within government agencies and their programs, rather than through isolated or narrow changes to specific ADS. 
Recommendation 2: Consider litigation as a rallying point and megaphone to amplify the voices of those personally impacted by ADS.
Recommendation 3: Track “bad actor” ADS vendors who migrate their defective systems to new agencies or areas of focus.
Recommendation 4: Enact open-file discovery policies for criminal cases involving ADS.
Recommendation 5: Update criminal discovery rules to treat ADS as accessible, contestable, and admissible evidence.
Recommendation 6: Develop ADS trainings and toolkits for the criminal defense community.
Recommendation 7: Expand prosecutorial understanding of the Supreme Court’s Brady Rule to include ADS evidence.
Recommendation 8: Follow the lead of Illinois by adopting statutes similar to its Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), in light of its effectiveness as an algorithmic accountability framework.
Recommendation 9: BIPA-style statutes should ensure a private right of action, standing to sue for non-consensual or non-specific data collection or use, and statutory fines for each violation.
Recommendation 10: BIPA-style laws should add strong prohibitions on government use of biometrics and impose liability on vendors who assist or provide the capacity for violations.
