A starting point for discussion
The idea
For a wider range of uses, Crawford and Schultz propose three rights: people should be told when an automated system has targeted them, be allowed to examine the evidence and reasoning used, and be able to appeal to an impartial decision-maker such as a court.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
Crawford and Schultz’s reported proposal includes notice, access to evidence and reasoning, and impartial appeal; it is a proposal, not a demonstrated remedy.
Recording and appeal offer different ways to check decisions
These procedural remedies are relevant to scrutiny and are distinct from recording alone.
People need to understand decisions before they can check them
Access to evidence and reasoning and impartial appeal are proposed means of enabling challenge, though they are not shown to overcome technical limits on review.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
The proposal would tell people when a system was used against them, let them review the material and method behind the decision, and give them an appeal to an impartial reviewer.
Why it matters
These steps aim to make automated decisions open to challenge, but the passage presents them as a proposal rather than a tested safeguard.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. The passage lists three parts of their proposed process and distinguishes its broad scope from the credit-assessment focus described just before it.
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution