AVTOMATIK QAROR QABUL QILISHDA KONSTITUTSION CHEKLOVLAR
Kalit so‘zlar:
algoritmik boshqaruv, avtomatlashtirilgan qaror qabul qilish, ish jarayoni, sun'iy intellekt huquqi, solishtirma konstitutsion huquq, Hindiston, O'zbekiston, protsedural adolatAbstrak
Hukumatlar endi katta qarorlarni, jumladan, kimga ijtimoiy yordam berilishini, soliqlar yig'ilishini, kim immigratsiya qilishini va kim jinoyat ishi bo'yicha javobgarlikka tortilishini avtomatlashtirilgan tizimlarga topshirishadi. Bu o'zgarish, ayniqsa, ish jarayoni, hokimiyatning bo'linishi va qonun oldida teng himoya kabi konstitutsion muammolarni keltirib chiqaradi. Ushbu maqola algoritmik boshqaruvning qanday qilib jamoat huquqini o'zgartirayotganini, odamlar emas, balki mashinalar uchun javobgarlikka tortiladigan joylarni o'rganadi. Maqola ushbu masala bo'yicha Yevropa Ittifoqining Sun'iy intellekt to'g'risidagi qonuni, GDPRning 22-moddasi, OECD printsipi va YUNESKOning axloqiy AI bo'yicha yo'riqnomalariga o'xshash xalqaro qoidalarni ko'rib chiqadi. Keyin u Hindiston va O'zbekistonda qonunlar qanday ekanligini bilish uchun yaqindan qaraydi. Ikki davlatda ham algoritmlarni javobgarlikka torta oladigan konstitutsion ramkalar mavjud, lekin hozircha, bu va'dalar haqiqiy, qonuniy kuchga ega qonunlarga aylanmagan.Yuklamalar
Havolalar
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine bias.
ProPublica.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2018). Guidelines on automated individual decision-making and profiling (WP251rev.01). Brussels.
Bundesverfassungsgericht. (1983). Volkszählungsurteil [Census Judgment], BVerfGE 65, 1.
Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33.
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Official Journal of the EU, L 119, 1–88.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Official Journal of the EU.
Government of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat. (2019). Directive on Automated Decision-Making. Ottawa.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India). Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
New Zealand Government. (2020). Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand.
Statistics New Zealand.
OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449. OECD.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (India).
Rechtbank Den Haag [District Court of The Hague]. (2020, February 5).
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878 (SyRI Case).
Right to Information Act, 2005, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2290 (2017).
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1.
Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz [German Administrative Procedure Act] (BGBl. I p. 102, as amended 2021, § 35a).
World Bank. (2021). Uzbekistan digital economy diagnostic. World Bank Group.
