Courtroom chronicles: ai and human rights in international legal precedents

Аннотация

This article reviews the AI and Human Rights in International Legal Precedents in Courtroom Chronicles. The object of the study is public relations regu- lated by both international and national law, which include certain actions for the pro- vision of artificial intelligence. Keywords: artificial intelligence, human rights, cybersecurity, international law, legal precedents 200 Digital Technologies and Law (секция на английском языке) Introduction. In international practice, an increasing number of court cases each year involve AI-based systems violating certain human rights provisions. Most of these cases focus on issues such as discrimination and privacy, but the scope of com- plaints coming to courts is not limited to these areas. European courts handle the largest number of cases related to protecting human rights from the adverse effects of AI technologies. In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union addressed the problem of unauthorized personal data collection and confirmed the illegality of third-party systems interference in people’s private lives, citing the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. This case marked the first instance where the Court established a precedent for handling cases involving AI-based systems. In 2018, a significant case was presented to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the UK government's extensive use of AI programs in mass surveillance and communications interception systems. These systems accessed private correspondence and other forms of communication of individual users, em- ploying automated tools for their analysis. After a thorough investigation that included consultations with subject matter experts, the Court delivered its ruling in 2021. The ECHR found that the implementation of such AI systems violated Article 8 of the Eu- ropean Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to privacy, and Arti- cle 10, which protects the right to freedom of expression. The Court's decision underscored the lack of effective measures to prevent po- tential human rights violations and criticized the absence of clear procedures to ensure that the surveillance measures were necessary and proportionate to their intended pur- poses [1]. This judgement emphasized the urgent need for specific regulations to gov- ern the use of surveillance technologies by law enforcement in a manner that respects fundamental human rights. In 2020, two human rights organizations, AlgorithmWatch and European Digital Rights (EDRi), specializing in monitoring human rights risks on the Internet, lodged a complaint against HireVue, a job-selection agency that utilizes facial recognition software powered by AI algorithms [2]. The complaint alleged that the use of such systems contravened the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and anti-discrimination laws. The facial recognition technology and other biometric data were used to make hiring decisions about potential employees without adequately informing the candidates involved [3]. The case against HireVue remains pending before the court, and a final decision has yet to be reached. However, the court's acceptance of the complaint has instigated a broad investigation into human resources practices by data protection authorities across several EU countries. This case has highlighted concerns regarding employment discrimination exacerbated by AI systems and the pressing need for regulatory over- sight in this domain. In Germany, for instance, the use of predictive analytics by em- ployment agencies to profile and categorize jobseekers has come under scrutiny [4]. Concerns have been raised that such profiling could lead to discriminatory practices, particularly against vulnerable groups. As a result, legal measures and reviews of do- mestic regulations are underway to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws and the protection of individuals' rights to fair and equal treatment. 201 Digital Technologies and Law (секция на английском языке) An illustrative example of AI's application in Germany is the Hessendata sys- tem, which employs AI to predict potential “propensity for criminal activity” based on personal data analysis [5]. Civil liberties groups have expressed concerns about priva- cy violations and racial profiling associated with the application of such tools. German courts have examined the system and previously demanded reforms to enhance trans- parency and accountability [6]. The ongoing legal scrutiny of the system’s functioning has spurred calls for stricter oversight of AI technologies in tasks that directly impact human rights. In Canada, the use of AI in immigration and refugee decision-making has sparked significant controversy. Agencies have been utilizing AI tools to review visa applications and assist with asylum claims [7]. Public outcry and calls for greater oversight and regulation of the use of AI in migration policy have prompted the Cana- dian courts to address these concer