Safe and Ethical AI (SEA) Platform Network · Linking Artificial Intelligence Principles (LAIP)

10. Prohibition on Secret Profiling.

No institution shall establish or maintain a secret profiling system. [Explanatory Memorandum] The Prohibition on Secret Profiling follows from the earlier Identification Obligation. The aim is to avoid the information asymmetry that arises increasingly with AI systems and to ensure the possibility of independent accountability.

Principle: Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

Published by The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Related Principles

· 5. The Principle of Explicability: “Operate transparently”

Transparency is key to building and maintaining citizen’s trust in the developers of AI systems and AI systems themselves. Both technological and business model transparency matter from an ethical standpoint. Technological transparency implies that AI systems be auditable, comprehensible and intelligible by human beings at varying levels of comprehension and expertise. Business model transparency means that human beings are knowingly informed of the intention of developers and technology implementers of AI systems. Explicability is a precondition for achieving informed consent from individuals interacting with AI systems and in order to ensure that the principle of explicability and non maleficence are achieved the requirement of informed consent should be sought. Explicability also requires accountability measures be put in place. Individuals and groups may request evidence of the baseline parameters and instructions given as inputs for AI decision making (the discovery or prediction sought by an AI system or the factors involved in the discovery or prediction made) by the organisations and developers of an AI system, the technology implementers, or another party in the supply chain.

Published by The European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence in Draft Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, Dec 18, 2018

· 2. NEED FOR CONSCIOUS RESPONSIBILITY WHEN CREATING AND USING AI

2.1. Risk based approach. The level of attention to ethical issues in AI and the nature of the relevant actions of AI Actors should be proportional to the assessment of the level of risk posed by specific technologies and AISs and the interests of individuals and society. Risk level assessment must take into account both the known and possible risks; in this case, the level of probability of threats should be taken into account as well as their possible scale in the short and long term. In the field of AI development, making decisions that are significant to society and the state should be accompanied by scientifically verified and interdisciplinary forecasting of socio economic consequences and risks, as well as by the examination of possible changes in the value and cultural paradigm of the development of society, while taking into account national priorities. In pursuance of this Code, the development and use of an AIS risk assessment methodology is recommended. 2.2. Responsible attitude. AI Actors should have a responsible approach to the aspects of AIS that influence society and citizens at every stage of the AIS life cycle. These include privacy; the ethical, safe and responsible use of personal data; the nature, degree and amount of damage that may follow as a result of the use of the technology and AIS; and the selection and use of companion hardware and software. In this case, the responsibility of the AI Actors must correspond to the nature, degree and amount of damage that may occur as a result of the use of technologies and AIS, while taking into account the role of the AI Actor in the life cycle of AIS, as well as the degree of possible and real impact of a particular AI Actor on causing damage, as well as its size. 2.3. Precautions. When the activities of AI Actors can lead to morally unacceptable consequences for individuals and society, the occurrence of which the corresponding AI Actor can reasonably assume, measures should be taken to prevent or limit the occurrence of such consequences. To assess the moral acceptability of consequences and the possible measures to prevent them, Actors can use the provisions of this Code, including the mechanisms specified in Section 2. 2.4. No harm. AI Actors should not allow use of AI technologies for the purpose of causing harm to human life, the environment and or the health or property of citizens and legal entities. Any application of an AIS capable of purposefully causing harm to the environment, human life or health or the property of citizens and legal entities during any stage, including design, development, testing, implementation or operation, is unacceptable. 2.5. Identification of AI in communication with a human. AI Actors are encouraged to ensure that users are informed of their interactions with the AIS when it affects their rights and critical areas of their lives and to ensure that such interactions can be terminated at the request of the user. 2.6. Data security AI Actors must comply with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of personal data and secrets protected by law when using an AIS. Furthermore, they must ensure the protection and protection of personal data processed by an AIS or AI Actors in order to develop and improve the AIS by developing and implementing innovative methods of controlling unauthorized access by third parties to personal data and using high quality and representative datasets from reliable sources and obtained without breaking the law. 2.7. Information security. AI Actors should provide the maximum possible protection against unauthorized interference in the work of the AI by third parties by introducing adequate information security technologies, including the use of internal mechanisms for protecting the AIS from unauthorized interventions and informing users and developers about such interventions. They must also inform users about the rules regarding information security when using the AIS. 2.8. Voluntary certification and Code compliance. AI Actors can implement voluntary certification for the compliance of the developed AI technologies with the standards established by the legislation of the Russian Federation and this Code. AI Actors can create voluntary certification and AIS labeling systems that indicate that these systems have passed voluntary certification procedures and confirm quality standards. 2.9. Control of the recursive self improvement of AISs. AI Actors are encouraged to collaborate in the identification and verification of methods and forms of creating universal ("strong") AIS and the prevention of the possible threats that AIS carry. The use of "strong" AI technologies should be under the control of the state.

Published by AI Alliance Russia in Artificial Intelligence Code of Ethics, Oct 26, 2021

1. Right to Transparency.

All individuals have the right to know the basis of an AI decision that concerns them. This includes access to the factors, the logic, and techniques that produced the outcome. [Explanatory Memorandum] The elements of the Transparency Principle can be found in several modern privacy laws, including the US Privacy Act, the EU Data Protection Directive, the GDPR, and the Council of Europe Convention 108. The aim of this principle is to enable independent accountability for automated decisions, with a primary emphasis on the right of the individual to know the basis of an adverse determination. In practical terms, it may not be possible for an individual to interpret the basis of a particular decision, but this does not obviate the need to ensure that such an explanation is possible.

Published by The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

3. Identification Obligation.

The institution responsible for an AI system must be made known to the public. [Explanatory Memorandum] Identification Obligation. This principle seeks to address the identification asymmetry that arises in the interaction between individuals and AI systems. An AI system typically knows a great deal about an individual; the individual may not even know the operator of the AI system. The Identification Obligation establishes the foundation of AI accountability which is to make clear the identity of an AI system and the institution responsible.

Published by The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

· Transparency and explainability

37. The transparency and explainability of AI systems are often essential preconditions to ensure the respect, protection and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms and ethical principles. Transparency is necessary for relevant national and international liability regimes to work effectively. A lack of transparency could also undermine the possibility of effectively challenging decisions based on outcomes produced by AI systems and may thereby infringe the right to a fair trial and effective remedy, and limits the areas in which these systems can be legally used. 38. While efforts need to be made to increase transparency and explainability of AI systems, including those with extra territorial impact, throughout their life cycle to support democratic governance, the level of transparency and explainability should always be appropriate to the context and impact, as there may be a need to balance between transparency and explainability and other principles such as privacy, safety and security. People should be fully informed when a decision is informed by or is made on the basis of AI algorithms, including when it affects their safety or human rights, and in those circumstances should have the opportunity to request explanatory information from the relevant AI actor or public sector institutions. In addition, individuals should be able to access the reasons for a decision affecting their rights and freedoms, and have the option of making submissions to a designated staff member of the private sector company or public sector institution able to review and correct the decision. AI actors should inform users when a product or service is provided directly or with the assistance of AI systems in a proper and timely manner. 39. From a socio technical lens, greater transparency contributes to more peaceful, just, democratic and inclusive societies. It allows for public scrutiny that can decrease corruption and discrimination, and can also help detect and prevent negative impacts on human rights. Transparency aims at providing appropriate information to the respective addressees to enable their understanding and foster trust. Specific to the AI system, transparency can enable people to understand how each stage of an AI system is put in place, appropriate to the context and sensitivity of the AI system. It may also include insight into factors that affect a specific prediction or decision, and whether or not appropriate assurances (such as safety or fairness measures) are in place. In cases of serious threats of adverse human rights impacts, transparency may also require the sharing of code or datasets. 40. Explainability refers to making intelligible and providing insight into the outcome of AI systems. The explainability of AI systems also refers to the understandability of the input, output and the functioning of each algorithmic building block and how it contributes to the outcome of the systems. Thus, explainability is closely related to transparency, as outcomes and ub processes leading to outcomes should aim to be understandable and traceable, appropriate to the context. AI actors should commit to ensuring that the algorithms developed are explainable. In the case of AI applications that impact the end user in a way that is not temporary, easily reversible or otherwise low risk, it should be ensured that the meaningful explanation is provided with any decision that resulted in the action taken in order for the outcome to be considered transparent. 41. Transparency and explainability relate closely to adequate responsibility and accountability measures, as well as to the trustworthiness of AI systems.

Published by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Nov 24, 2021