自动化行政的法律控制
|
摘要
自动化行政存在于信息、数据的收集与处理,行政活动电子化以及直接作出行政决定三种情形中,在当下备受关注。它与传统行政活动在主体、程序、裁量等方面都存在差异,由此潜藏了诸多未来可能出现的法律风险,例如信息、数据收集以及处理的错误风险、对个人隐私和数据保护的侵扰风险、算法不透明所引发的风险等。厘清自动化行政的法律控制要素,即从自动化行政的主体、权利、程序几个方面加以考量,将有助于我们对现有的法律体系进行思考、修正、补充并在需要建构新的法律规则的情形下给予及时补足。这也应当是我们当下对待人工智能时代的态度:谨慎且冷静。
Automated administration exists in three circumstances including collection and processing of information and data, electronization of administrative activities, and direct making of administrative decisions, receiving much concern.It differs from traditional administrative activities in many aspects such as subject, procedure and discretion.Therefore, a number of possible legal risks are hidden, such as risk of error in information and data collection and processing, risk of intrusion upon individual privacy and data protection, and risks triggered by implicit algorithms.It will help us meditate over, modify and supplement existing legal systems if we clarify legal control elements of automated administration, that is, to consider the subject, rights and procedures of automated administration.Moreover, timely measures can be adopted when new legal rules need to be established.This should also be our current attitude towards the era of artificial intelligence: prudent and calm.
Automated administration exists in three circumstances including collection and processing of information and data, electronization of administrative activities, and direct making of administrative decisions, receiving much concern.It differs from traditional administrative activities in many aspects such as subject, procedure and discretion.Therefore, a number of possible legal risks are hidden, such as risk of error in information and data collection and processing, risk of intrusion upon individual privacy and data protection, and risks triggered by implicit algorithms.It will help us meditate over, modify and supplement existing legal systems if we clarify legal control elements of automated administration, that is, to consider the subject, rights and procedures of automated administration.Moreover, timely measures can be adopted when new legal rules need to be established.This should also be our current attitude towards the era of artificial intelligence: prudent and calm.
引文
(1)[美]雷·库兹韦尔:《机器之心:当计算机超越人类,机器拥有了心灵》,胡晓娇、张温卓玛、吴纯洁等译,中信出版集团2016年版,第304页。
(2)据不完全统计,清华大学、北京大学、南开大学、浙江大学、西南政法大学等国内诸多知名高校都开始设立人工智能研究实验室、法律问题研究中心等。
(3)“A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law,”Artificial Intelligence and Law, September 2012, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 215–319, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x.(访问日期:2018年12月20日)。
(4)[德]毛雷尔:《行政法学总论》,高家伟译,法律出版社2000年版,第438页。此外,马颜昕副研究员也将自动化行政区分为自动化辅助、部分自动化、无裁量能力的完全自动化以及有裁量能力的完全自动化等多个级别。参见马颜昕:《自动化行政的分级与法律控制变革》,载《行政法学研究》2019年第1期。
(5)可参见查云飞:《人工智能时代全自动具体行政行为研究》,载《比较法研究》2018年第5期。
(6)《新一代人工智能发展规划》((国发[2017]35号),国务院2017年7月8日印发实施)。
(7)英美法的相关用语可参见Frank Pasquale & Glyn Cashwell, “Four Futures of Legal Automation”, University of California Review, 63 Disc 3, 2016, pp28-47.作者提出了未来法律自动化的四种模式,认为根据任务的复杂程度,自动化程度也会有所区别。
(8)[日]松尾丰、盐野诚:《大智能时代:智能科技如何改变人类的经济、社会与生活》,机械工业出版社2016年版,第59页。
(9)可参见《中华人民共和国电子签名法》(2004年8月28日中华人民共和国主席令第18号公布)第2条。
(10)Danielle Keats Citron & Frank Pasquale, “Due Process for Automated Predictions”, Washington Law Review, Vol.89, 2014,pp1-33.
(11)腾讯研究院:《人工智能:国家人工智能战略行动抓手》,中国人民大学出版社2017年版,第269页。
(12)尽管,AI时代改变了国家的物理界限,但国家的概念恐怕仍将存在。可参见[日]松尾丰、盐野诚:《大智能时代:智能科技如何改变人类的经济、社会与生活》,机械工业出版社2016年版,第59页。
(13)例如,郑州市金水区人民法院[2014]金行初字第124号行政判决书中,原告认为,被告使用违法采集的、不具有法律效力的电子眼信息作为处罚依据,不合法。所采用的电子眼均没有依法向计量法规定的政府计量监督管理部门申请安装检定和强制性年度检验,违反《中华人民共和国计量法》相关规定。根据《公安部关于规范道路技术监控设备的通知》(公道通[2007]54号)中的规定,未依法检定、逾期未检定或者检定不合格的监控设备,不得继续使用。
(14)参见欧盟GPDR第4条。
(15)World Economic Forum, White Paper Shaping the Future Implications of Digital Media for Society Valuing Personal Data and Rebuilding Trust January 2017 End-User Perspectives on Digital Media Survey: Summary ,White Paper, January 2017, https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/valuing- personal-data-and-rebuilding-trust.(最后访问时间2018年12月20日)。
(16)Peter Swire, “Social Networks, Privacy and Freedom of Association: Data Protection v. Data Empowerment”, California Law Review, 90 North, 2012,pp1371-1416.
(17)[德]毛雷尔:《行政法学总论》,高家伟译,法律出版社2000年版,第445页。
(18)Anupam Chander, “The Racist Algorithm?”, Michigan Law Review, Vol 115,2016, pp1023-1045.
(19)Diakopoulos N, “Algorithmic Accountability”, Digital Journalism, 3(3), 2015, pp398-415.
(20)腾讯研究院:《人工智能:国家人工智能战略行动抓手》,中国人民大学出版社2017年版,第230页。
(21)Article 22, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)
(22)Cary Coglianese & David Lehr, “Regulating by Robot”, Georgetown Law Journals, Vol 105,2015, pp 1147-1222.
(23)A., Geistfeld, Mark, “A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort Liability, Automobile Insurance, and Federal Safety Regulation”, California Law Review, Vol 105,2017, pp1611-1694.
(24)Warren and Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy”, Harvard Law Review, 4, 1890, pp193-220.
(25)Peter Swire, “Social Networks, Privacy and Freedom of Association: Data Protection v. Data Empowerment”, North California Law Review,90,2012,pp1371-1416.
(26)《国务院办公厅关于印发互联网+政务服务技术体系建设指南的通知》(国办函[2016]108)。
(27)Omer Tene & Jules Polonetsky, “Symposium Issue: Privacy in the Age of Big Data: Privacy in the Age of Big Data: A time for Big Decisions”, Stanford Law Review, 64,2012 ,pp 64-80.
(28)参见Diakopoulos N, “Algorithmic Accountability”,Digital Journalism, 3(3),2015, pp398-415.
(29)Danielle Keats Citron, “Technological Due Process”, Washington University Law Review, Vol. 85, 2007,pp1249-1313.
(30)Sue Fliess, Robots, Robots Everywhere! (2013). 转引自 Melanie Reid, “Rethinking the Fourth Amendment in the Age of Supercomputers, Artificial Intelligence, and Robots”, West Virginia Law Review, Vol 119,2017,pp 863-890.
(2)据不完全统计,清华大学、北京大学、南开大学、浙江大学、西南政法大学等国内诸多知名高校都开始设立人工智能研究实验室、法律问题研究中心等。
(3)“A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law,”Artificial Intelligence and Law, September 2012, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 215–319, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x.(访问日期:2018年12月20日)。
(4)[德]毛雷尔:《行政法学总论》,高家伟译,法律出版社2000年版,第438页。此外,马颜昕副研究员也将自动化行政区分为自动化辅助、部分自动化、无裁量能力的完全自动化以及有裁量能力的完全自动化等多个级别。参见马颜昕:《自动化行政的分级与法律控制变革》,载《行政法学研究》2019年第1期。
(5)可参见查云飞:《人工智能时代全自动具体行政行为研究》,载《比较法研究》2018年第5期。
(6)《新一代人工智能发展规划》((国发[2017]35号),国务院2017年7月8日印发实施)。
(7)英美法的相关用语可参见Frank Pasquale & Glyn Cashwell, “Four Futures of Legal Automation”, University of California Review, 63 Disc 3, 2016, pp28-47.作者提出了未来法律自动化的四种模式,认为根据任务的复杂程度,自动化程度也会有所区别。
(8)[日]松尾丰、盐野诚:《大智能时代:智能科技如何改变人类的经济、社会与生活》,机械工业出版社2016年版,第59页。
(9)可参见《中华人民共和国电子签名法》(2004年8月28日中华人民共和国主席令第18号公布)第2条。
(10)Danielle Keats Citron & Frank Pasquale, “Due Process for Automated Predictions”, Washington Law Review, Vol.89, 2014,pp1-33.
(11)腾讯研究院:《人工智能:国家人工智能战略行动抓手》,中国人民大学出版社2017年版,第269页。
(12)尽管,AI时代改变了国家的物理界限,但国家的概念恐怕仍将存在。可参见[日]松尾丰、盐野诚:《大智能时代:智能科技如何改变人类的经济、社会与生活》,机械工业出版社2016年版,第59页。
(13)例如,郑州市金水区人民法院[2014]金行初字第124号行政判决书中,原告认为,被告使用违法采集的、不具有法律效力的电子眼信息作为处罚依据,不合法。所采用的电子眼均没有依法向计量法规定的政府计量监督管理部门申请安装检定和强制性年度检验,违反《中华人民共和国计量法》相关规定。根据《公安部关于规范道路技术监控设备的通知》(公道通[2007]54号)中的规定,未依法检定、逾期未检定或者检定不合格的监控设备,不得继续使用。
(14)参见欧盟GPDR第4条。
(15)World Economic Forum, White Paper Shaping the Future Implications of Digital Media for Society Valuing Personal Data and Rebuilding Trust January 2017 End-User Perspectives on Digital Media Survey: Summary ,White Paper, January 2017, https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/valuing- personal-data-and-rebuilding-trust.(最后访问时间2018年12月20日)。
(16)Peter Swire, “Social Networks, Privacy and Freedom of Association: Data Protection v. Data Empowerment”, California Law Review, 90 North, 2012,pp1371-1416.
(17)[德]毛雷尔:《行政法学总论》,高家伟译,法律出版社2000年版,第445页。
(18)Anupam Chander, “The Racist Algorithm?”, Michigan Law Review, Vol 115,2016, pp1023-1045.
(19)Diakopoulos N, “Algorithmic Accountability”, Digital Journalism, 3(3), 2015, pp398-415.
(20)腾讯研究院:《人工智能:国家人工智能战略行动抓手》,中国人民大学出版社2017年版,第230页。
(21)Article 22, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)
(22)Cary Coglianese & David Lehr, “Regulating by Robot”, Georgetown Law Journals, Vol 105,2015, pp 1147-1222.
(23)A., Geistfeld, Mark, “A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort Liability, Automobile Insurance, and Federal Safety Regulation”, California Law Review, Vol 105,2017, pp1611-1694.
(24)Warren and Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy”, Harvard Law Review, 4, 1890, pp193-220.
(25)Peter Swire, “Social Networks, Privacy and Freedom of Association: Data Protection v. Data Empowerment”, North California Law Review,90,2012,pp1371-1416.
(26)《国务院办公厅关于印发互联网+政务服务技术体系建设指南的通知》(国办函[2016]108)。
(27)Omer Tene & Jules Polonetsky, “Symposium Issue: Privacy in the Age of Big Data: Privacy in the Age of Big Data: A time for Big Decisions”, Stanford Law Review, 64,2012 ,pp 64-80.
(28)参见Diakopoulos N, “Algorithmic Accountability”,Digital Journalism, 3(3),2015, pp398-415.
(29)Danielle Keats Citron, “Technological Due Process”, Washington University Law Review, Vol. 85, 2007,pp1249-1313.
(30)Sue Fliess, Robots, Robots Everywhere! (2013). 转引自 Melanie Reid, “Rethinking the Fourth Amendment in the Age of Supercomputers, Artificial Intelligence, and Robots”, West Virginia Law Review, Vol 119,2017,pp 863-890.