Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 245–268 | Cite as

The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

One of the most noticeable trends in recent years has been the increasing reliance of public decision-making processes (bureaucratic, legislative and legal) on algorithms, i.e. computer-programmed step-by-step instructions for taking a given set of inputs and producing an output. The question raised by this article is whether the rise of such algorithmic governance creates problems for the moral or political legitimacy of our public decision-making processes. Ignoring common concerns with data protection and privacy, it is argued that algorithmic governance does pose a significant threat to the legitimacy of such processes. Modelling my argument on Estlund’s threat of epistocracy, I call this the ‘threat of algocracy’. The article clarifies the nature of this threat and addresses two possible solutions (named, respectively, ‘resistance’ and ‘accommodation’). It is argued that neither solution is likely to be successful, at least not without risking many other things we value about social decision-making. The result is a somewhat pessimistic conclusion in which we confront the possibility that we are creating decision-making processes that constrain and limit opportunities for human participation.

Keywords

Algocracy Epistocracy Big data Data mining Legitimacy Human enhancement 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank audiences at Exeter and Maynooth Universities, and two anonymous referees for feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standard

Ethical Statement

The author declares no conflicts of interest. Research for this paper was not funded nor did it involve any work involving human or animal subjects.

References

  1. Agar, N. (2013). Truly human enhancement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, MA and Mann, S. (2013). The inevitability of the transition from a surveillance society to a veillance society: moral and economic grounding for sousveillance. IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society ISTAS 243–254 (available at http://wearcam.org/veillance/IEEE_ISTAS13_Veillance2_Ali_Mann.pdf accessed 31/7/14)
  3. Aneesh, A. (2006). Virtual Migration. Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Aneesh, A. (2009). Global labor: algocratic modes of organization. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrejevic, M. (2014). The big data divide. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1673–1689.Google Scholar
  6. Besson, S., & Marti, J. L. (2006). Deliberative democracy and its discontents. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Bishop, M. & Trout, JD. (2002). 50 years of successful predictive modeling should be enough: lessons for philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science: PSA 2000 Symposium Papers, 2002 69 (supplement): S197-S208Google Scholar
  8. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  9. Brin, D. (1997). The transparent society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine. Lexington, MA: Digital Frontiers Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Bumbulsky, J. 2013. Chaotic Storage Lessons. Medium (available at https://medium.com/tech-talk/e3b7de266476 -accessed 1/3/15.
  13. Ceva, E. (2012). Beyond legitimacy: can proceduralism say anything relevant about justice? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chase Lipton, Z. (2015). The myth of model interpretability, KD Nuggets News 15:n3 – available at http://www.kdnuggets.com/2015/04/model-interpretability-neural-networks-deep-learning.htmlGoogle Scholar
  15. Citron, D. (2010). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85, 1249.Google Scholar
  16. Citron, D., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 86, 101.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, A. (2010). Supersizing the mind. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cowen, T. (2013). Average is over: powering America beyond the age of the great stagnation. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  20. Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2014). Big data and due process: towards a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55, 93.Google Scholar
  21. Danaher, J. (2013). On the need for epistemic enhancement: democratic legitimacy and the enhancement project. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(1), 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Estlund, D. (1993). Making truth safe for democracy. In D. Copp, J. Hampton, & J. Roemer (Eds.), The idea of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Estlund, D. (2003). Why not Epistocracy? In Naomi Reshotko (ed) Desire, Identity, and Existence: Essays in Honour of T.M. Penner. Academic Printing and PublishingGoogle Scholar
  24. Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gaus, G. 2010. The order of public reason. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenfield, R. (2012). Inside the method to Amazon's beautiful warehouse madness. The Wire (available at http://www.thewire.com/technology/2012/12/inside-method-amazons-beautiful-warehouse-madness/59563/ - accessed 1/3/15.
  27. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics: notes on a program of philosophical justification. In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhart and Shierry Weber Nicholson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kellermeit, D. and Obodovski, D. (2013). The Silent Intelligence: The Internet of Things. DND Ventures LLCGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitchin, R. (2014a). The data revolution: big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitchin, R. (2014b). Thinking critically about researching algorithms. The Programmable City Working Paper 5 – available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2515786
  32. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kurzweil, R. (2006). The singularity is near. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  34. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Lessig, L. (2006). Code 2.0. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  36. Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2012). Estlund on epistocracy: a critique. Res Publica, 18(3), 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lipschulz, R. and Hester, R. (2014). We are the Borg! Human Assimilation into Cellular Society. In Michael and Michael (eds). Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implantation. IGI-GlobalGoogle Scholar
  38. Lisboa, P. (2013). Interpretability in machine learning: principles and practice. In Masulli, F, Pasi, G and Yager, R (eds) Fuzzy Logic and Applications (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013)Google Scholar
  39. List, C., & Goodin, R. (2001). Epistemic democracy: generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Machin, D. (2009). The irrelevance of democracy to the public justification of political authority. Res Publica, 15, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mann, S. (2013). Veillance and reciprocal transparency: surveillance versus sousveillance, AR Glass, Lifeglogging, and Wearable Computing. Available at http://wearcam.org/veillance/veillance.pdf -- accessed 1/3/15.
  42. Mann, S., Nolan, J., & Wellman, B. (2003). Sousveillance: inventing and using wearable computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments. Surveillance and Society, 3, 331–355.Google Scholar
  43. Mayer-Schonberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live work and think. John Murray.Google Scholar
  44. Meehl, P. E. (1996). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence (pp. v–xii). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield/Jason Aronson. (Original work published 1954)Google Scholar
  45. Miner, L et al. (2014). Practical Predictive Analytics and Decisioning-Systems for Medicine. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Mittelstadt, B D, and Floridi, L. (2015). The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Science and Engineering Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9652-2Google Scholar
  47. Morozov, E. (2013). The real privacy problem. MIT Technology Review (available at: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/ - accessed 1/3/15)
  48. Otte, C. (2013). Safe and interpretable machine learning: a methodological review. In C. Moewes & A. Nurnberger (Eds.), Computational Intelligence in Intelligent Data Analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Patterson, S. (2013). Dark pools: the rise of ai trading machines and the looming threat to wall street. Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  50. Pentland, A. (2014). Social Physics. London: Penguin PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Peter, F. (2008). Pure epistemic proceduralism. Episteme, 5, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peter, F. (2014). Political Legitimacy. In Edward N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Spring 2014 Edition -- available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/legitimacy/
  53. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  54. Rifkin, J. (2014). The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons and the Eclipse of Capitalism. Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  55. Seaver, N. (2013). Knowing algorithms. In Media in Transition 8, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  56. Siegel, E. (2013). Predictive analytics: the power to predict who will click, buy, lie or die. John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  57. Slater, D. (2013). Love in a time of Algorithms. CurrentGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson, C. (2013). Smarter than you think: how technology is changing our minds for the better. London: William Collins.Google Scholar
  59. Vellido, A, Martín-Guerrero, J. and Lisboa, P. (2012). Making machine learning models interpretable. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine LearningGoogle Scholar
  60. Zarsky, T. (2011). Governmental data-mining and its alternatives. Penn State Law Review, 116, 285.Google Scholar
  61. Zarsky, T. (2012). Automated predictions: perception, law and policy. Communications of the ACM, 15(9), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zarsky, T. (2013). Transparent prediction. University of Illinois Law Review, 4, 1504.Google Scholar
  63. Zeng, J, Ustun, B and Rudin, C. (2015). Interpretable Classification Models for Recidivism Prediction. MIT Working Paper, available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07810v2.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, NUI GalwayUniversity RoadGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations