| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Dexe, Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
An Empirical Investigation of the Right to Explanation Under GDPR in Insurance
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business : TrustBus 2020 - TrustBus 2020. - Cham : Springer International Publishing. - 9783030589851 - 9783030589868 ; 12395, s. 125-139, s. 125-139
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The GDPR aims at strengthening the rights of data subjects and to build trust in the digital single market. This is manifested by the introduction of a new principle of transparency. It is, however, not obvious what this means in practice: What kind of answers can be expected to GDPR requests citing the right to “meaningful information”? This is the question addressed in this article. Seven insurance companies, representing 90–95% of the Swedish home insurance market, were asked by consumers to disclose information about how premiums are set. Results are presented first giving descriptive statistics, then characterizing the pricing information given, and lastly describing the procedural information offered by insurers as part of their answers. Overall, several different approaches to answering the request can be discerned, including different uses of examples, lists, descriptions of logic, legal basis as well as data related to the process of answering the requests. Results are analyzed in light of GDPR requirements. A number of potential improvements are identified—at least three responses are likely to fail the undue delay requirement. The article is concluded with a discussion about future work.
|
|
| 3. |
- Burden, Håkan, et al.
(författare)
-
Sustainable AI and Disruptive Policy – AI Regulatory Sandboxes
- 2023
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The rapid pace of digitalization and the new opportunities for value creation has raised a concern that regulation is lagging behind and becoming an obstacle. A number of tools have been proposed in order to facilitate innovation that is aligned with existing or upcoming policies.A specific case of both facilitating and regulating innovation is the EU’s proposed regulation of AI systems. The act not only poses legal requirements on providers and users of AI systems but also includes measures for facilitating innovation – the concept of regulatory sandboxes is defined with specific purposes together with legal exempts.At the time of releasing our paper, the trilogue has reached a political agreement. This means the proposed AI Act will be, even though we do not yet have the final wording. By mapping the negotiation mandates of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union against Swedish experiences of facilitating innovation and regulatory compliance in relation to AI, we still suggest launching pilots for regulatory sandboxes without delay.Based on our own experiences from conducting policy labs and those reported on by others from their regulatory trials, we conclude that it takes time to grow confidence in defining a research agenda with other stakeholders and then strike the balance between facilitation and surveillance of innovation. Something that will require institutional learning and capacity building.The mandate to foster and facilitate regulatory compliance as well as innovation, given to the public sector through the AI Act’s regulatory sandboxes, is disruptive. It changes the role and responsibilities for some national authorities, requiring the acquisition of new competences and resources, as well as for the private sector. When they team up with a competent authority the mandate to act becomes larger, as does the responsibility with regards to which kinds of innovation to drive.Conducting trials in the current window of opportunity, between now and when the AI Act is in force, will create experiences that policy makers and stakeholders can draw on when creating the detailed guidelines for organising regulatory sandboxes. Adopting an incremental and iterative process enables a transition from learning the basics of selecting a case and finding relevant partners to detailing how to process data and sharing responsibilities and rewards.
|
|
| 4. |
- Burden, Håkan, et al.
(författare)
-
The Swedish policy lab for maritime autonomous surface ships
- 2022
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Swedish policy lab for maritime autonomous surface ships, or smart ships, explored three use cases for developing policy in practice. The policies regard smart ships on national waters: one short-term written policy identifying the next shared step for two authorities to position remote navigational assistance as a new service, giving the maritime ecosystem one official position to relate to; one informal policy relying on a mutual trust, where information sharing between an operator of small, unmanned ships and the supervisory authority enables critical competence building; and one evolving policy on the process of certifying autonomous or remote operated functions using non-standardized technology. In conclusion, despite shipping being explicitly regulated internationally we found that there is substantial leeway for national policies regarding smart ships on national waters.
|
|
| 5. |
- Dexe, Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
Explaining automated decision-making: a multinational study of the GDPR right to meaningful information
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Geneva papers on risk and insurance. Issues and practice. - : Springer Nature. - 1018-5895 .- 1468-0440.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) establishes a right for individuals to get access to information about automated decision-making based on their personal data. However, the application of this right comes with caveats. This paper investigates how European insurance companies have navigated these obstacles. By recruiting volunteering insurance customers, requests for information about how insurance premiums are set were sent to 26 insurance companies in Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Findings illustrate the practice of responding to GDPR information requests and the paper identifies possible explanations for shortcomings and omissions in the responses. The paper also adds to existing research by showing how the wordings in the different language versions of the GDPR could lead to different interpretations. Finally, the paper discusses what can reasonably be expected from explanations in consumer oriented information.
|
|
| 6. |
- Mochaourab, Rami, et al.
(författare)
-
Demonstrator on Counterfactual Explanations for Differentially Private Support Vector Machines
- 2023
-
Ingår i: <em>Lecture Notes in Computer Science </em>. - Cham : Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. - 9783031264214 - 9783031264221 ; , s. 662-666
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- We demonstrate the construction of robust counterfactual explanations for support vector machines (SVM), where the privacy mechanism that publicly releases the classifier guarantees differential privacy. Privacy preservation is essential when dealing with sensitive data, such as in applications within the health domain. In addition, providing explanations for machine learning predictions is an important requirement within so-called high risk applications, as referred to in the EU AI Act. Thus, the innovative aspects of this work correspond to studying the interaction between three desired aspects: accuracy, privacy, and explainability. The SVM classification accuracy is affected by the privacy mechanism through the introduced perturbations in the classifier weights. Consequently, we need to consider a trade-off between accuracy and privacy. In addition, counterfactual explanations, which quantify the smallest changes to selected data instances in order to change their classification, may become not credible when we have data privacy guarantees. Hence, robustness for counterfactual explanations is needed in order to create confidence about the credibility of the explanations. Our demonstrator provides an interactive environment to show the interplay between the considered aspects of accuracy, privacy, and explainability.
|
|
| 7. |
- Nielsen, Maria, et al.
(författare)
-
Nanomaterials in the European chemicals legislation-methodological challenges for registration and environmental safety assessment
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Environmental Science: Nano. - : Royal Society of Chemistry. - 2051-8153 .- 2051-8161. ; 8:3, s. 731-747
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In the European Union the Annexes of its chemical legislation (REACH) were revised and now clarify the technical data requirements for nanomaterials (NMs). These new provisions, effective from January 1, 2020, introduce requirements for manufacturers, importers and downstream users regarding registration and safety assessment of NMs. This study aims to assess the availability and suitability of methods needed to comply with the new regulatory provisions on NMs for physico-chemical characterisation and environmental fate and effects. The scientific literature and relevant test guideline frameworks were reviewed to identify applicable methods. These were subsequently evaluated and categorised as either: 'internationally accepted test guideline or standard (TGS)', 'internationally accepted test guideline or standard under development (TGSUD)', 'established as standard methods in scientific literature (SCI)', 'other methods and/or more research needed (O)' or 'no method (N)'. We find that 80% of the information requirements and a bit more than 40% of the waiving criteria in the new REACH Annexes are supported by methods that are available as TGS, TGSUD or SCI. Most of the relevant methods in the scientific literature are included in recent OECD guidance documents or ECHA guidance. We recommend that a targeted effort is made to develop protocols and guidelines for methods to determine NM adsorption/desorption, degradation, exposure scenarios and ability to cross biological membranes. Here methods to fulfil the information requirements and waiving criteria are currently lacking. Furthermore, we recommend that increasing attention is directed towards regulatory reliability and relevance of the information that is submitted by the registrants.
|
|
