arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2205.03925

Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law

Alexander Hicks
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Both technical security mechanisms and legal processes serve as mechanisms to deal with misbehaviour according to a set of norms. While they share general similarities, there are also clear differences in how they are defined, act, and the effect they have on subjects. This paper considers the similarities and differences between both types of mechanisms as ways of dealing with misbehaviour, and where they interact with each other. Taking into consideration the idea of code as law, we discuss accountability mechanisms for code, and how they must relate to both security principles and legal principles. In particular, we identify the ability to contest norms enforced by code as an important part of accountability in this context. Based on this analysis, we make the case for transparency enhancing technologies as security mechanisms that can support legal processes, in contrast to other types of accountability mechanisms for code. We illustrate this through two examples based on recent court cases that involved Post Office in the United Kingdom and Uber in the Netherlands, and discuss some practical considerations.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alexander Hicks. 2022-09-27. Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law. https://doi.org/10.1145/3584318.3584854

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Funding the runners-up beats a golden ticket

A golden ticket allows one reviewer to advance a proposal that the rest of a panel would reject. We assess its score-based rationale by comparing minority-support ranking with other rules for allocating the same number of places. We do so on 10,625 rejected submissions to a computer-science conference between 2017 and 2024, using later citation percentiles as the outcome. Minority-support ranking measured the gap between the two highest scores after adjustment for the panel mean and reviewer count. At a budget of 10% of the year's accepted count, panel-mean ranking selected submissions with a mean citation percentile 7.75 points higher than minority-support ranking (95% bootstrap interval 4.35 to 11.09). The difference was larger in the other sample periods and citation windows examined. At that budget, minority-support ranking was equivalent to a lottery within a margin of plus or minus 5 percentile points. Two further analyses, adjusted highest-score ranking and a matched comparison, found no clear citation advantage from minority support once the panel mean was accounted for. Ranking on score variance also outperformed minority-support ranking in a paired comparison. Estimates cover the 69.8% of eligible rejections whose later citations could be verified. These comparisons identify panel-mean ranking as a benchmark for evaluating whether golden tickets select work that would otherwise be overlooked.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Who Decides? Agency and Legitimacy in Digital Educational Systems

Digital Educational Systems (DES) enable millions of individuals to learn or to acquire new skills. Their promises vary from one platform to another: some grant genuine degrees, others pledge rapid progress, drawing for this purpose on a range of techniques, from the recommendation of learning resources through complex models to a plain course textbook uploaded onto a learning management system. In this article, we argue that categorizing DES along two dimensions allows to map differences in the way these DES structurally conceptualise the learning process. These underlying dimensions are at once dimensions of the student model and mechanisms built in the DES's designs; we identify them as agency and legitimacy. Indeed, DES are, on the one hand, anchored in an institutionalised regime that grants them legitimacy and, in turn, legitimises the learning undertaken on these platforms; on the other hand, they make design choices as to the share of decision left to the learner in the learning process. We map a curated sample of common DES onto a plane composed of these two dimensions translated into indicators. This allows us to highlight underpopulated regions of the plane and to envisage how a DES might regulate these two dimensions algorithmically, in the interest of learning.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) imposes technical obligations on high-risk AI providers, yet Articles 8-15 were drafted for predictive AI and leave seven technical gaps when applied to generative systems, spanning non-deterministic data governance, training-data provenance, continuous conformity, human oversight, open-ended robustness, emergent risk, and generative fairness. We deliver Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework of 43 machine-checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules that run in a CI/CD pipeline and emit Article-indexed audit evidence, and we show the actual Rego policy code rather than merely describing it. Our central commitment is that the Act's open-textured standards ("appropriate levels," "possible biases") become declared, auditable numbers: robustness thresholds are derived from the provider's documented baseline and a state-of-the-art floor, and framing bias is collapsed into eight measurable proxies tested by counterfactual demographic probing. We also correct who owes what, since under Article 25 and Chapter V a downstream deployer relies on the upstream provider's Article 53 training-data summary and documents only the layers it controls, so GaC verifies that summary rather than demanding per-sample documentation the deployer never had. We validate on two enterprise deployments, a high-risk advisory chatbot and a limited-risk content generator, benchmarking against a manual expert audit rather than documentation artifacts that were never designed to enforce compliance. GaC reproduces all of the manual audit's findings, including three penalty-triggering violations, while cutting audit labor by roughly 75%.

cs.CY↗