- Like the other automated decision support system scenarios examined, to avoid gamification of the application process, the MLSP’s “black-boxing” of the system rules, design, and how attribution criteria impacted assessment outcomes, resulted in a loss of trust in the system and negative public perception, and ultimately the dismantling of the ADM system. [...] Instead, the Court believed it could not legally assess whether the SyRI’s discriminatory results were “sufficiently neutralized due to the absence of verifiable insight into the risk indicators and the risk model as well as the functioning of the risk model, including the analysis method applied by the Social Affairs and Employment Inspectorate.”[77] Lastly, the practical benefits of the system h. [...] Details about the project were sparse, but information posted online by Face4 Systems Inc., the Ottawa based firm contracted by the CBSA to run the pilot and supply its FRT, advertised that the system made 47 positive matches with the CBSA’s database.[91] According to Face4, the objective of the pilot was to “assess the readiness of face surveillance technology in a semi-constrained environment.”. [...] The social workers were worried that the systems may not be legal and argued that the lack of human perspective may inhibit them from fully understanding the circumstances of a beneficiary.[112] The Trelleborg case has continued to be the subject of controversy, provoking questions about the role of algorithms in public services, the job safety of public employees, and the transparency of decision. [...] According to one commentator, “after a number of parliamentary inquiries and freedom of information requests,” the government continued to “deliberately prevent the release of information to the public concerning the processed categories of personal data, the logic of the algorithms and the outcomes of the projects.” In several of the cases above, implementing agencies considered major parts of th.
Authors
- Pages
- 100
- Published in
- Canada
