This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Aarnio, Aulis. The Rational as Reasonable: A Treatise on Legal Justification (Springer Science & Business Media 1986): 22.AarnioAulisThe Rational as Reasonable: A Treatise on Legal JustificationSpringer Science & Business Media19862210.1007/978-94-009-4700-9Search in Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry, Moore, Michael. “Deontological Ethics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Edward N. Zalta (Winter 2020, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2020).AlexanderLarryMooreMichael“Deontological Ethics.”InThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyedited byZaltaEdward N.Winter2020Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University2020Search in Google Scholar
Araujo, Theo, et al. “In AI We Trust? Perceptions about Automated Decision-Making by Artificial Intelligence.” AI & Society 35 (2020): 611, 616.AraujoTheo“In AI We Trust? Perceptions about Automated Decision-Making by Artificial Intelligence.”AI & Society35202061161610.1007/s00146-019-00931-wSearch in Google Scholar
Barocas, Solon, Selbst Andrew D, “Big Data's Disparate Impact.” California Law Review 104 (2016): 671, 692.BarocasSolonSelbstAndrew D“Big Data's Disparate Impact.”California Law Review104201667169210.2139/ssrn.2477899Search in Google Scholar
Biran Or, Cotton, Courtenay. “Explanation and Justification in Machine Learning: A Survey.” /paper/Explanation-and-Justification-in-Machine-Learning-%3A-Biran-Cotton/02e2e79a77d8aabc1af1900ac80ceebac20abde4.BiranOrCottonCourtenay“Explanation and Justification in Machine Learning: A Survey.”/paper/Explanation-and-Justification-in-Machine-Learning-%3A-Biran-Cotton/02e2e79a77d8aabc1af1900ac80ceebac20abde4.Search in Google Scholar
Brennan-Marquez, Kiel. “Plausible Cause’: Explanatory Standards in the Age of Powerful Machines.” Vanderbilt Law Review 70, no. 53 (2017).Brennan-MarquezKiel“Plausible Cause’: Explanatory Standards in the Age of Powerful Machines.”Vanderbilt Law Review7053201710.2139/ssrn.2827733Search in Google Scholar
Brkan, Maja. “The Essence of the Fundamental Rights to Privacy and Data Protection: Finding the Way Through the Maze of the CJEU's Constitutional Reasoning.” German Law Journal 20 (2019): 864.BrkanMaja“The Essence of the Fundamental Rights to Privacy and Data Protection: Finding the Way Through the Maze of the CJEU's Constitutional Reasoning.”German Law Journal20201986410.1017/glj.2019.66Search in Google Scholar
Butterworth, Michael. “The ICO and Artificial Intelligence: The Role of Fairness in the GDPR Framework.” Computer Law & Security Review 34 (2018): 257.ButterworthMichael“The ICO and Artificial Intelligence: The Role of Fairness in the GDPR Framework.”Computer Law & Security Review34201825710.1016/j.clsr.2018.01.004Search in Google Scholar
Clifford, Damian, Ausloos, Jeff. “Data Protection and the Role of Fairness.” Yearbook of European Law 37 (2018): 130.CliffordDamianAusloosJeff“Data Protection and the Role of Fairness.”Yearbook of European Law37201813010.1093/yel/yey004Search in Google Scholar
Dressel, Julia, Farid, Hany. “The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism.” Science Advances 4 (2018): eaao5580.DresselJuliaFaridHany“The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism.”Science Advances42018eaao558010.1126/sciadv.aao5580Search in Google Scholar
Dwork, Cynthia, Mulligan, Deirdre K. “It's Not Privacy, and It's Not Fair.” Stanford Law Review 6 (2013): 66.DworkCynthiaMulliganDeirdre K“It's Not Privacy, and It's Not Fair.”Stanford Law Review6201366Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Lilian, Veale, Michael. “Slave to the Algorithm? Why a ‘Right to an Explanation’ Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For,” 16 Duke Law & Technology Review 18 (2017).EdwardsLilianVealeMichael“Slave to the Algorithm? Why a ‘Right to an Explanation’ Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For,”16Duke Law & Technology Review18201710.31228/osf.io/97upgSearch in Google Scholar
Edwards, Lilian, Veale, Michael. “Enslaving the Algorithm: From a ‘Right to an Explanation’ to a ‘Right to Better Decisions’?” 16 IEEE Security & Privacy 46 (2018).EdwardsLilianVealeMichael“Enslaving the Algorithm: From a ‘Right to an Explanation’ to a ‘Right to Better Decisions’?”16IEEE Security & Privacy46201810.1109/MSP.2018.2701152Search in Google Scholar
Galhotra, Sainyam, Brun, Yuriy, Meliou, Alexandra. “Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discrimination.” Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering—ESEC/FSE 2017, (ACM, 2017) http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3106237.3106277.GalhotraSainyamBrunYuriyMeliouAlexandra“Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discrimination.”Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering—ESEC/FSE 2017ACM2017http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3106237.3106277.10.1145/3106237.3106277Search in Google Scholar
Goodman, Bryce, Flaxman, Seth. “EU Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a ‘Right to Explanation’” arXiv:1606.08813 [cs, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08813, accessed 30 June 2018.GoodmanBryceFlaxmanSeth“EU Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a ‘Right to Explanation’”arXiv:1606.08813 [cs, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08813, accessed 30 June 2018.Search in Google Scholar
Goodman, Bryce. A Step Towards Accountable Algorithms?: Algorithmic Discrimination and the European Union General Data Protection. (2016).GoodmanBryceA Step Towards Accountable Algorithms?: Algorithmic Discrimination and the European Union General Data Protection2016Search in Google Scholar
Hamon, Ronan and others. “Impossible Explanations? Beyond Explainable AI in the GDPR from a COVID-19 Use Case Scenario.” Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Association for Computing Machinery 2021).HamonRonan“Impossible Explanations? Beyond Explainable AI in the GDPR from a COVID-19 Use Case Scenario.”Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and TransparencyAssociation for Computing Machinery202110.1145/3442188.3445917Search in Google Scholar
Hazen, Benjamin T., et al. “Data Quality for Data Science, Predictive Analytics, and Big Data in Supply Chain Management: An Introduction to the Problem and Suggestions for Research and Applications.” International Journal of Production Economics 154 (2014): 72.HazenBenjamin T.“Data Quality for Data Science, Predictive Analytics, and Big Data in Supply Chain Management: An Introduction to the Problem and Suggestions for Research and Applications.”International Journal of Production Economics15420147210.1016/j.ijpe.2014.04.018Search in Google Scholar
Henin, Clément, Le Métayer, Daniel. “A Framework to Contest and Justify Algorithmic Decisions.” [2021] AI and Ethics.HeninClémentLe MétayerDaniel“A Framework to Contest and Justify Algorithmic Decisions.”2021AI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-021-00054-3Search in Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Mireille. Law for Computer Scientists and Other Folk (Oxford University Press 2020): 267.HildebrandtMireilleLaw for Computer Scientists and Other FolkOxford University Press202026710.1093/oso/9780198860877.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Mireille. “Profile Transparency by Design? Re-Enabling Double Contingency.” available at https://works.bepress.com/mireille_hildebrandt/63/.HildebrandtMireille“Profile Transparency by Design? Re-Enabling Double Contingency.”available at https://works.bepress.com/mireille_hildebrandt/63/.Search in Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald L. “Justification and Excuse in the Program of the Criminal Law.” Law and Contemporary Problems 49 (1986): 109.HorowitzDonald L.“Justification and Excuse in the Program of the Criminal Law.”Law and Contemporary Problems49198610910.2307/1191628Search in Google Scholar
Hutton, Luke, Henderson, Tristan. “Beyond the EULA: Improving Consent for Data Mining,” In Transparent Data Mining for Big and Small Data edited by Tania Cerquitelli, Daniele Quercia, and Frank Pasquale (eds.), (Springer, New York 2017): 147 at 162.HuttonLukeHendersonTristan“Beyond the EULA: Improving Consent for Data Mining,”InTransparent Data Mining for Big and Small Dataedited byCerquitelliTaniaQuerciaDanielePasqualeFrank(eds.),SpringerNew York2017147at 162.10.1007/978-3-319-54024-5_7Search in Google Scholar
Kaminski, Margot E. “The Right to Explanation, Explained.” 34 Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2019): 189.KaminskiMargot E.“The Right to Explanation, Explained.”34Berkeley Technology Law Journal201918910.2139/ssrn.3196985Search in Google Scholar
Kaminski, Margot E., Malgieri, Gianclaudio. “Multi-Layered Explanation from Algorithmic Impact Assessments in the GDPR.” FAT 2020 Proceedings (ACM Publishing, 2020).KaminskiMargot E.MalgieriGianclaudio“Multi-Layered Explanation from Algorithmic Impact Assessments in the GDPR.”FAT 2020 ProceedingsACM Publishing202010.1145/3351095.3372875Search in Google Scholar
Kaminski, Margot E., Malgieri, Gianclaudio. “Algorithmic Impact Assessments under the GDPR: Producing Multi-Layered Explanations.” 19–28 University of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper available at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3456224.KaminskiMargot E.MalgieriGianclaudio“Algorithmic Impact Assessments under the GDPR: Producing Multi-Layered Explanations.”1928University of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paperavailable at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3456224.Search in Google Scholar
Kaminski, Margot. “Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR's Approach to Algorithmic Accountability.” 92 Southern California Law Review 1529 (2019):12–17.KaminskiMargot“Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR's Approach to Algorithmic Accountability.”92Southern California Law Review15292019121710.2139/ssrn.3351404Search in Google Scholar
Katyal, Sonia K. “Private Accountability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” UCLA Law Review 66 (2019): 88.KatyalSonia K“Private Accountability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.”UCLA Law Review6620198810.1017/9781108680844.004Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Pauline T. “Data-Driven Discrimination at Work.” 58 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. (2017): 857.KimPauline T.“Data-Driven Discrimination at Work.”58Wm. & Mary L. Rev.2017857Search in Google Scholar
Kloza, Dariusz, et al. “Data Protection Impact Assessment in the European Union: Developing a Template for a Report from the Assessment Process.” (LawArXiv 2020) DPiaLab Policy Brief 29 available at https://osf.io/7qrfp.KlozaDariusz“Data Protection Impact Assessment in the European Union: Developing a Template for a Report from the Assessment Process.” (LawArXiv 2020)DPiaLab Policy Brief29available at https://osf.io/7qrfp.10.31228/osf.io/7qrfpSearch in Google Scholar
Kroll, Joshua et al. “Accountable Algorithms.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165 (2017): 633.KrollJoshua“Accountable Algorithms.”University of Pennsylvania Law Review1652017633Search in Google Scholar
Lepri, Bruno, et al., “Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-Making Processes.” Philosophy & Technology 31 (2018): 611.LepriBruno“Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-Making Processes.”Philosophy & Technology31201861110.1007/s13347-017-0279-xSearch in Google Scholar
Lipton, Zachary C. “The Mythos of Model Interpretability.” Communications of the ACM 61 (2018): 36.LiptonZachary C.“The Mythos of Model Interpretability.”Communications of the ACM6120183610.1145/3233231Search in Google Scholar
Lodder, Arno R. Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation (1999º edizione, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999).LodderArno R.Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation1999º edizioneKluwer Academic Publishers199910.1007/978-94-011-3957-1Search in Google Scholar
Loi, Michele, Ferrario, Andrea, Viganò, Eleonora. “Transparency as Design Publicity: Explaining and Justifying Inscrutable Algorithms.” In Ethics and Information Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09564-w.LoiMicheleFerrarioAndreaViganòEleonora“Transparency as Design Publicity: Explaining and Justifying Inscrutable Algorithms.”InEthics and Information Technologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09564-w.10.1007/s10676-020-09564-wSearch in Google Scholar
Malgieri, Gianclaudio, Comandé, Giovanni. “Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation.” International Data Privacy Law 7, no. 4 (2017): 243–65.MalgieriGianclaudioComandéGiovanni“Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation.”International Data Privacy Law7420172436510.1093/idpl/ipx019Search in Google Scholar
Malgieri, Gianclaudio. “Automated Decision-Making in the EU Member States: The Right to Explanation and Other ‘Suitable Safeguards’ in the National Legislations.” Computer Law & Security Review 35, no. 105327 (2019): 9–11.MalgieriGianclaudio“Automated Decision-Making in the EU Member States: The Right to Explanation and Other ‘Suitable Safeguards’ in the National Legislations.”Computer Law & Security Review35105327201991110.1016/j.clsr.2019.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Malgieri, Gianclaudio. “The Concept of Fairness in the GDPR: A Linguistic and Contextual Interpretation.” Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Association for Computing Machinery 2020) available at https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372868, accessed 29 January 2020.MalgieriGianclaudio“The Concept of Fairness in the GDPR: A Linguistic and Contextual Interpretation.”Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and TransparencyAssociation for Computing Machinery2020available at https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372868, accessed 29 January 2020.10.1145/3351095.3372868Search in Google Scholar
Malgieri, Gianclaudio, Niklas, Jedrzej. “The Vulnerable Data Subject.” 37 Computer Law & Security Review (2020).MalgieriGianclaudioNiklasJedrzej“The Vulnerable Data Subject.”37Computer Law & Security Review202010.1016/j.clsr.2020.105415Search in Google Scholar
Milaj, Jonida. “Privacy, Surveillance, and the Proportionality Principle: The Need for a Method of Assessing Privacy Implications of Technologies Used for Surveillance.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 30 (2016): 115, 116.MilajJonida“Privacy, Surveillance, and the Proportionality Principle: The Need for a Method of Assessing Privacy Implications of Technologies Used for Surveillance.”International Review of Law, Computers & Technology30201611511610.1080/13600869.2015.1076993Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Tim. “Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences.” 267 Artificial Intelligence 1, (2019).MillerTim“Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences.”267Artificial Intelligence1201910.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007Search in Google Scholar
Mortier Richard and others. “Human-Data Interaction.” In The Interaction Design Foundation (ed), The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, (2nd edition, The Interaction Design Foundation 2015).MortierRichard“Human-Data Interaction.”InThe Interaction Design Foundation (ed), The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction2nd editionThe Interaction Design Foundation2015Search in Google Scholar
Moser, Paul K “Justification in the Natural Sciences.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (1991): 557–75.MoserPaul K“Justification in the Natural Sciences.”The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science3919915577510.1093/bjps/42.4.557Search in Google Scholar
Oprișiu, Raluca. “Reversal of ‘the Burden of Proof’ in Data Protection | Lexology.” available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e9e8c734-23d9-41bb-a723-5d664b3c86cc.OprișiuRaluca“Reversal of ‘the Burden of Proof’ in Data Protection | Lexology.”available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e9e8c734-23d9-41bb-a723-5d664b3c86cc.Search in Google Scholar
Petkova, Bilyana, Hacker, Philipp. “Reining in the Big Promise of Big Data: Transparency, Inequality, and New Regulatory Frontiers.” Lecturer and Other Affiliate Scholarship Series available at https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylas/13 (2016).PetkovaBilyanaHackerPhilipp“Reining in the Big Promise of Big Data: Transparency, Inequality, and New Regulatory Frontiers.”Lecturer and Other Affiliate Scholarship Seriesavailable at https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylas/132016Search in Google Scholar
Ramamurthy, Karthikeyan Natesan, et al. “Model Agnostic Multilevel Explanations.” available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.06005v1, accessed 25 March 2020.RamamurthyKarthikeyan Natesan“Model Agnostic Multilevel Explanations.”available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.06005v1, accessed 25 March 2020.Search in Google Scholar
Reisman, Dillon, et al. Algorithm Impact Assessment: A Practical Framework for Public Agency Accountability. (AI Now Institute: 2018).ReismanDillonAlgorithm Impact Assessment: A Practical Framework for Public Agency AccountabilityAI Now Institute2018Search in Google Scholar
Roig, Antoni. “Safeguards for the Right Not to Be Subject to a Decision Based Solely on Automated Processing (Article 22 GDPR).” European Journal of Law and Technology 8 (2018).RoigAntoni“Safeguards for the Right Not to Be Subject to a Decision Based Solely on Automated Processing (Article 22 GDPR).”European Journal of Law and Technology82018Search in Google Scholar
Rudin, Cynthia. “Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead.” Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (2019): 206, 207.RudinCynthia“Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead.”Nature Machine Intelligence1201920620710.1038/s42256-019-0048-xSearch in Google Scholar
Selbst, Andrew D., Powles, Julia. “Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation.” International Data Privacy Law 7, no. 4 (2017): 233–42.SelbstAndrew D.PowlesJulia“Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation.”International Data Privacy Law7420172334210.1093/idpl/ipx022Search in Google Scholar
Selbst, Andrew D. “Disparate Impact in Big Data Policing.” Georgia Law Review 52 (2018): 109; Reisman et al., (n 76).SelbstAndrew D.“Disparate Impact in Big Data Policing.”Georgia Law Review522018109Reisman et al., (n 76).10.2139/ssrn.2819182Search in Google Scholar
Selbst, Andrew D., et al. “Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems.” Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM, 2019) http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598.SelbstAndrew D.“Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems.”Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and TransparencyACM2019http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598.10.1145/3287560.3287598Search in Google Scholar
Selbst, Andrew D., Barocas, Solon. “The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines.” 87 Fordham Law Review 1085 (2018).SelbstAndrew D.BarocasSolon“The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines.”87Fordham Law Review1085201810.2139/ssrn.3126971Search in Google Scholar
Smith, J. C. Justification and Excuse in the Criminal Law (Stevens 1989).SmithJ. C.Justification and Excuse in the Criminal LawStevens1989Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law.” Crime and Justice 30, no. 283, (2003): 317–18.TylerTom R“Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law.”Crime and Justice3028320033171810.1086/652233Search in Google Scholar
Veale, Michael, Edwards, Lilian. “Clarity, Surprises, and Further Questions in the Article 29 Working Party Draft Guidance on Automated Decision-Making and Profiling.” Computer Law & Security Review 34 (2018): 398.VealeMichaelEdwardsLilian“Clarity, Surprises, and Further Questions in the Article 29 Working Party Draft Guidance on Automated Decision-Making and Profiling.”Computer Law & Security Review34201839810.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Wachter, Sandra, Mittelstadt, Brent, Floridi, Luciano. “Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation.” International Data Privacy Law 7, no. 2 (2017): 76–99.WachterSandraMittelstadtBrentFloridiLuciano“Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation.”International Data Privacy Law722017769910.1093/idpl/ipx005Search in Google Scholar
Wachter, Sandra, Mittelstadt, Brent, Russell, Chris. “Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 31, no. 2 (2018).WachterSandraMittelstadtBrentRussellChris“Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR.”Harvard Journal of Law & Technology312201810.2139/ssrn.3063289Search in Google Scholar
Wachter, Sandra. Affinity Profiling and Discrimination by Association in Online Behavioural Advertising (Social Science Research Network 2019) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3388639 https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3388639.WachterSandraAffinity Profiling and Discrimination by Association in Online Behavioural AdvertisingSocial Science Research Network2019SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3388639 https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3388639.10.2139/ssrn.3388639Search in Google Scholar
Wachter, Sandra, Mittelstadt, Brent. “A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI.” Columbia Business Law Review 2 (2019).WachterSandraMittelstadtBrent“A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI.”Columbia Business Law Review2201910.31228/osf.io/mu2kfSearch in Google Scholar