An excellent forthcoming paper by Aziz Huq breaks down the various weaknesses in the increasingly common demand for a “right to a human decision.” Huq analyzes the many arguments in favor of obligatory human decision-making processes and concludes by suggesting that we’d be better off working toward a higher standard of machine decisions. Within the paper, Huq does an excellent job dissecting the short-sighted conclusions of GDPR Section 22.
The paper is excellent but very technical. I do not expect to hear any populist calls for a right to a well-calibrated machine decision any time soon.
In news that sounds like it matters but might not: The Supreme Court rules against Apple in Apple v. Pepper. Ben Thompson sides with the dissent in suggesting that it should be developers that have standing to sue in this situation, not Apple’s customers. I hear his argument, but also am sympathetic to the majority opinion that “if accepted, Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust enforcement.” But I certainly agree with Thompson that, “making tech policy according to a 40-year old case about brick manufacturers is stupid; there is a real need for new laws that deal with the reality of tech specifically.”