If the Internet Legislative 1.0 era, the security port system established by the Millennium Digital Copyright Law，It aims to protect an Internet company with information network communication rights as the main service content，Then the era of network legislation 2.0 opened the era of user rights with personal data and personal information as an important protection object。Collect data around data、Processing、Utilizing and distributed as a world data factory，The interests of the interests of online enterprises and personal interests may not only affect the individual interests of the private law subject，It may also affect the interests of unspecified groups，It even touches the legal system as a basic behavior of social behavior。So，Some content that is not valued in early network legislation is revealed on the expansion of artificial intelligence technology maps，and show the more and more important importance。The right to interpret the algorithm of automated decision -making is exactly one of them。

At present, the main application scenarios of automation decision -making algorithm are: push for custom information、Consultant -type service (such as Smart Investment Consultation、Robot doctor)、Automated driving car、search engine service, etc.。Although the expert of the legal theory of legal body is trying to regulate the regulation of the development protocol or computer chip of the robot，But the objective situation is，The law has adopted completely different responsibilities constituent constituent requirements for product -type algorithms and service -oriented bet365 live casino games algorithms。In other words，In an algorithm responsibility incident with a physical foundation or carrier，Legislative legislation that people rely too much on the current product infringement liability，without fully considering the infringement liability of the automation decision algorithm itself。Although the robot doctor may not work in the state of accessing the Internet，But the data sets used for training and deep learning algorithm for performing specific surgery，It can easily synchronize the latest online online、offline research results。So，Networks based on the principle of technical neutrality 1.0 legislation，It is mainly a responsibility exemption type rather than responsible composition legislation，Interested in promoting Internet companies that were in the bud and development period at the time。But，Expressing over time，Not only the capital enters the industry，The development of artificial intelligence technology has also made the counterparts of algorithm services increasingly objective and marginalized。The right to interpret the algorithm can be regarded as the right to defend human self -decision，A kind of effort against data controller and processor。

Access with the era of network legislation 1.0、Transmission、Different indirect infringement caused by the forwarding service，Internet Legislative 2.0 era，Algorithm service providers appear more with the face of direct infringement subjects。Algorithm service providers need to from the personal information of online users、Behavior trajectory，Even in the complaint process，Samples of users as machine learning in all aspects、Source of big data、The imitation object of human -machine interaction and the realistic scene built by virtual society。in design、In the process of manufacturing and perfect algorithms，bet365 best casino games When constructing a virtual economy and society that is independent of real economy and society，You need to observe close -up、Research、Tracking、Analysis，or even monitoring (such as various sensors、Satellite remote sensing technology、Camera and other IoT technologies) Activity of users for users。The fragments of these data together constitute the fuel of the intelligent industrial furnace represented by an automatic learning algorithm，Delivery、Forecast、Stimulate user needs，So as a customized service for users or refusing to service。The initiative of the user in the service is also constantly weakened。Visible，The above representative algorithm service (product) can be regarded as a service contract with a broad algorithm technology as the core。From this，Algorithm service providers have the payment obligation and attachment obligations of contract law。

Out of the perspective of protecting business secrets and reducing burden，Companies that cannot be required to provide algorithm services explain to all algorithms。So，EU has limited the right to interpretation of automated decision -making algorithms。This system was first seen in Article 15 of the EU "Data Protection instruction"，Since this article only specifies the algorithm of specific types，The most controversial in the lawsuit is whether the decision -making is purely made by the machine (person)。So，This clause has not received much attention in European courts，More little borrowed from the legal system outside Europe。Wide application with deep learning technology，increased decision -making scenarios，The controversy caused by it is becoming increasingly fierce。

EU "General Data Protection Regulations" stipulates the issue of automated decision -making algorithms in multiple terms，Including Article 71 of "For" (hereinafter referred to as "Article Bet365 lotto review 71")，Article 13 of the text、Article 14 and 22。As a clause that is also titled by "automation decision"，Article 22 does not increase substantial content on the basis of Article 15，It only supplements the exception of explicit consent as an exception to be determined by automation; in Article 15, the data subject has the right to express views，Added the right to propose objection to the decision，Summarize the two as the right to obtain artificial intervention。This is mainly the output result of the dynamic learning of machine learning algorithms，It is difficult for humans to supervise effectively，Discriminate input variables such as manual label，There is also a potential risk of algorithm prejudice。Visible，Algorithm interpretation right is the essence of the right to be derived from basic human rights.。Some scholars only understand the right to interpret the algorithm with Article 71，There are also algorithm logic of Article 13, paragraph 2, paragraph 2, paragraph 2 of the formal article、The obligation to notify the importance and consequences of data processing is regarded as the right to interpret，Some scholars interpret Article 22 as anti -autopsy decisions。true，These provisions related to automated decision -making algorithms have certain contacts，It is different from the algorithm of non -automated decision -making，But they are also significantly different。

Algorithm logic of Article 13 and 14 of General Data Protection Regulations、The obligation of the importance of data processing and consequences，It is a general that does not produce unfair consequences、Explanation obligation to protect the right to know。Article 71 and 22 are the guarantee measures and exception clauses based on the evaluation results。Article 71 and Article 22 are based on legal consequences or Bet365 app download similar impacts on the subject of data，and contains the necessity principle of the decision on the need to reach and fulfill the contract between the two parties，or decide the hidden condition that the data main body explicitly consent。Visible，Article 71 is more of the legislative function of protecting the right of the data subject，and Article 22 set the exception clause for automated decision -making algorithms。From the relationship between the two，According to Article 71，Even when the existence of exceptions，Data main body still enjoys the right to interpretation，It should only be constrained by this decision。If the 71st paragraph 2 is regarded as the principle of transparency in the algorithm，The referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 71，The right to interpret the algorithm explained after the evaluation decide is explained，In fact, it is one of the "Appropriate Prevention Measures" contained in the "proper prevention measures" contained in the anti -automation decision algorithm，It is to tell the relevant information with clearly and inform it that it requires manual intervention、expression、A claim explanation of the right to objection。

It is different from the right to know under the principle of algorithm。Seven principles of algorithm governance released by the US Computer Association in 2017，The right to know should disclose the design of the algorithm、Execution、The prejudice and potential hazards that may cause during use。Obviously，It may not be related to the premise of automation decision -making and the premise of personal sensitive information evaluation。The right to interpret is not only a right to passive defense，It can be regarded as and expression views、Rights to propose objections，thus becoming the basis for obtaining human intervention and other alternative selection。bet365 Play online games If you explain according to this logic，The right to interpret the algorithm as a explanation obligation to meet the purpose of the contract or the basis of the contract。From this，As the main body of the party service service，According to Article 496 of the Civil Code，Terms of a major interest relationship for the other party，Except Article 13 of the EU's "General Data Protection Regulations"、Article 14 of the notification，There is also a legal explanation obligation，Otherwise, the other party can claim that the clause does not constitute the content of the contract。Therefore, the right to interpret the algorithm also has the dual attributes of the obligation of obligations and data subject self -determination。

"Personal Information Protection Law (Draft)" Article 25 does not specify exception clauses，This may cause the algorithm provider to lose the opponent's objection，The possibility of defense based on the principle of necessity and the consent of the explicit sign。More importantly，Article 25 will limit the applicable scenario of the explanatory right，It only stipulates that it has a significant impact，No legal effect，and distribute the burden of proof to the data subject。This is very unfavorable to the explanation right of the data main body。54 Requires information processors to evaluate the risk of automated decision -making，Record the processing situation，This is an advanced administrative algorithm risk assessment measure，can only play a certain preventive role from the perspective of algorithm，But cannot be combined with the right to interpret the right of individual，It is still difficult to substantially become an algorithm service provider for manual intervention，may provide conditions that do not target options for personal characteristics。Although Article 25, paragraph Bet365 lotto review 2 stipulates the algorithm service provider to carry out commercial marketing、When pushing information，Provide obligations without personal feature options，But the possibility of artificial intervention other than information push services is difficult to explain the expansion of this model，or based on the algorithm evaluation of Article 54。

　Bet365 lotto review