Access to Algorithms

Fordham Law Review Volume 88 Issue 4 Article 2 2020 Access to Algorithms Hannah Bloch-Wehba Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Access to Algorithms, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 1265 (2020). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact . ARTICLES ACCESS TO ALGORITHMS Hannah Bloch-Wehba* Federal, state, and local governments increasingly depend on automated systems—often procured from the private sector—to make key decisions about civil rights and liberties. When individuals affected by these decisions seek access to information about the algorithmic methodologies that produced them, governments frequently assert that this information is proprietary and cannot be disclosed. Recognizing that opaque algorithmic governance poses a threat to civil rights and liberties, scholars have called for a renewed focus on transparency and accountability for automated decision-making. But scholars have neglected a critical avenue for promoting public accountability and transparency for automated decision-making: the law of access to government records and proceedings. This Article fills this gap in the literature, recognizing that the Freedom of Information Act, its state equivalents, and the First Amendment provide unappreciated legal support for algorithmic transparency. The law of access performs three critical functions in promoting algorithmic accountability and transparency. First, by enabling any individual to challenge algorithmic opacity in government records and proceedings, the law of access can relieve some of the burden otherwise borne by parties who are often poor and underresourced. Second, access law calls into question government’s procurement of algorithmic decisionmaking technologies from private vendors, subject to contracts that include sweeping protections for trade secrets and intellectual property rights. * Assistant Professor of Law, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law; Affiliated Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School. My thanks to Jack Balkin, Emily Berman, David Cohen, Ellen Goodman, Ben Green, Ben Grunwald, Christina Koningisor, Irina Manta, Christopher Reed, Rory Van Loo, and Andrew Selbst for helpful conversations and feedback. I am indebted to Lauren Kirchner and Julia Angwin, now of The Markup, and to Dick Tofel of ProPublica for bringing this issue to my attention. I am also grateful for the opportunity to present earlier versions of this project at the Seton Hall Law Artificial Intelligence and the Law Conference, UC Irvine’s Technology, Law & Society Summer Institute, Hofstra Law’s Intellectual Property Colloquium, Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, the Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference, and the Mid-Atlantic Junior Faculty Forum. Finally, I am indebted to the student editors of the Fordham Law Review for their meticulous and thoughtful editing. This Article reflects the current state of developments in February 2020, when it was finalized for publication. All errors are my own. 1265 1266 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 88 Finally, the law of access can promote an urgently needed public debate on algorithmic governance in the public sector. INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1266 I. THE RISE OF PUBLIC SECTOR ALGORITHMS ............................... 1273 A. Medicaid ......................................................................... 1274 B. Education ........................................................................ 1279 C. Criminal Law Enforcement ............................................ 1283 1. Policing .................................................................... 1283 2. Bail ........................................................................... 1284 3. Evidence................................................................... 1286 4. Sentencing ................................................................ 1288 II. ALGORITHMIC OPACITY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ 1290 A. Concealing Government Decision-Making .................... 1290 B. The Role of Human Judgment ........................................ 1292 C. Process and Results ........................................................ 1293 III. ACCESS LAW FOR AN OPAQUE AGE ......................................... 1295 A. Why Access Law? ........................................................... 1295 B. Transparency’s Statute: FOIA....................................... 1298 1. Exemption 4 ............................................................. 1300 2. Exemption 5 ............................................................. 1302 C. Transparency’s Constitution: The First Amendment .... 1303 IV. TRANSPARENCY REMEDIES FOR ALGORITHMIC OPACITY ....... 1306 A. Secrecy by Contract ........................................................ 1307 B. Transparency for Me, but Not for Thee .......................... 1308 C. The Challenge to Transparency Values ......................... 1312 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 1314 INTRODUCTION Government decision-making is increasingly automated. Cities use machine-learning algorithms to track gunshots,1 determine where to send police on patrol,2 and fire ineffective teachers.3 State agencies use algorithms 1. See Chris Weller, There’s a Secret Technology in 90 US Cities That Listens for Gunfire 24/7, BUS. INSIDER (June 27, 2017, 10:59 AM), https://www.businessinsider.com/ how-shotspotter-works-microphones-detecting-gunshots-2017-6 [https://perma.cc/F6KXR25U]. 2. See Stephen Goldsmith & Chris Bousquet, The Right Way to Regulate Algorithms, CITYLAB (Mar. 20, 2018), citylab.com/equity/2018/03/the-right-way-to-regulate-algorithms/ 555998 [https://perma.cc/WWP4-B8YC]. 3. See generally Hous. Fed’n of Teachers, Local 2415 v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 251 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (S.D. Tex. 2017) [hereinafter HISD]. 2020] ACCESS TO ALGORITHMS 1267 to predict criminal behavior,4 interpret DNA evidence,5 and allocate Medicaid benefits.6 Courts decide, using “decision-support” tools, whether a suspect poses a risk,7 eligibility for pretrial release,8 and how harsh a sentence to impose.9 The federal government uses algorithms to put individuals on immigrant and terrorist watchlists,10 make policy decisions about whether and how to change Social Security,11 and catch tax evaders.12 How are these new technologies changing government decision-making? “Algo (...truncated)