Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:29:59.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: A Business Ethical Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2020

Alexander KRIEBITZ Open the ORCID record for Alexander KRIEBITZ [Opens in a new window]  and
Christoph LÜTGE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved as a disruptive technology, impacting a wide range of human rights-related issues ranging from discrimination to supply chain due diligence. Given the increasing human rights obligations of companies and the intensifying discourse on AI and human rights, we shed light on the responsibilities of corporate actors in terms of human rights standards in the context of developing and using AI. What implications do human rights obligations have for companies developing and using AI? In our article, we discuss firstly whether AI inherently conflicts with human rights and human autonomy. Next, we discuss how AI might be linked to the beneficence criterion of AI ethics and how AI might be applied in human rights-related areas. Finally, we elaborate on individual aspects of what it means to conform to human rights, addressing AI-specific problem areas.

Keywords

artificial intelligencecorporate ethicsdata privacydigitizationhuman rights
Type
Scholarly Articles
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 84 - 104
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Research Associate at the Chair of Business Ethics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. Alexander Kriebitz declares no conflict of interest.

**

Chair Holder and Full Professor at the Chair of Business Ethics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. As Professor at Technical University of Munich and as director of the Institute of Ethics in Artificial Intelligence, Christoph Lütge received project funding from Facebook Inc., Fujitsu K.K. and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd related to research on artificial intelligence and ethics.

References

1 David Kaye, ‘Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, Open Letter to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1 June 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Legislation/OL-DEU-1-2017.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019). Josh Cowls et al, ‘Designing AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors’ (15 May 2019), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3388669 (accessed 27 November 2019).

2 Matthey Sparkes, ‘Top Scientists Call for Caution over Artificial Intelligence’, The Telegraph (13 January 2015), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html (accessed 27 November 2019).

3 ‘Stephen Hawking Warns Artificial Intelligence Could End Mankind’, BBC (2 December 2014), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540 (accessed 27 November 2019).

4 Compare, e.g., Floridi, Lucianoet al, ‘AI4People – An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations’ (2018) 28 Minds & Machines 4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, 689 and Russell, Stuartet al, ‘Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence’ (2015) 36 Artificial Intelligence Magazine 4, 105.Google Scholar

5 Floridi et al, note 4.

6 High Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, ‘Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI’ (8 April 2019), https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60419 (accessed 27 November 2019).

7 Floridi et al, note 4, as well as Josh Cowls and Luciano Floridi, ‘Prolegomena to a White Paper on an Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society’ (2019), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3198732 (accessed 27 November 2019).

8 Simma, Bruno and Pulkowski, Dirk, ‘Of Planets and the Universe: Self-Contained Regimes’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 3, 483CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/Guidingprinciples%20Businesshr_eN.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019)

10 Jägers, Compare Nicola, Corporate Human Rights Obligations (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2002)Google Scholar; Santoro, Michael A, Profits and Principles: Global Capitalism and Human Rights in China (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Wettstein, Florian, Multinational Corporations and Global Justice (Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Ruggie, John Gerard, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013)Google Scholar; Muchlinsky, Peter, ‘Implementing the New UN Corporate Human Rights Framework. Implications for Corporate Law, Governance, and Regulation’ (2002) 22 Business Ethics Quarterly 1, 145–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Simma and Pulkowski, note 8. Gardbaum, Stephen, ‘Human Rights as International Constitutional Rights’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 4, 749CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Kant, Immanuel, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Berlin, Isaiah, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 118Google Scholar.

14 Hohfeld, Wesley, ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’ (1917) 26 Yale Law Journal 8, 710CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Mill, John S, On Liberty (London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1859)Google Scholar.

16 Gerhard M Ambrosi, ‘Aristotle’s Geometrical Model of Distributive Justice’ (2007), https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/prof/VWL/EWP/Publikationen/Ambrosi/Aristotle-4.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019); Pojman, Louis P, Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1996)Google Scholar.

17 Weber, Max, ‘Politik als Beruf’, in Geistige Arbeit als Beruf. Vier Vorträge vor dem Freistudentischen Bund (Munich, Germany: Duncker & Humblot, 1919)Google Scholar.

18 Zucca, Lorenzo, Constitutional Dilemmas: Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights in Europe and the USA (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Harbo, Tor-Inge, ‘The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law’ (2010) 16 European Law Journal 2, 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Craig, Paul and de Bruca, Grainne, EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Committee against Torture, ‘Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of the United Kingdom’, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3 (25 November 2004), para 4(a)(i).

20 Kuszler, Patricia C, ‘Global Health and the Human Rights Imperative’ (2007) 2 Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 1Google Scholar, 99.

21 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx (accessed 27 November 2019).

22 Ruggie, John Gerard, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013)Google Scholar; Zerk, JA, Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility. Limitations and Opportunities in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Human Rights Council, ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’, https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/reports-and-materials/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

24 David Kaye, ‘Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, Open Letter to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1 June 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Legislation/OL-DEU-1-2017.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019) and Cowls et al, note 1 and John McCarthy, ’Programs with Common Sense’, in Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes (City: Publisher, 1959), 75.

25 John McCarthy, ’Programs with Common Sense’, in Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes (City: Publisher, 1959), 75.

26 Stuart Russell et al, ‘Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence’, AI Magazine (2015), https://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ (accessed 27 November 2019).

27 David Kaye, ‘Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, Open Letter to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1 June 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Legislation/OL-DEU-1-2017.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

28 Compare Brannon, Jason and Jaworski, Peter M, Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Mueller, Julian F, ‘The Ethics of Commercial Human Smuggling’ (2018) European Journal of Political Theory 1–19.Google Scholar

29 IAP Wogu, ‘Artificial Intelligence, Alienation and Ontological Problems of Other Minds: A Critical Investigation into the Future of Man and Machines’, Conference or Workshop Item (2018), http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/id/eprint/11499 (accessed 27 November 2019).

30 The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles (2019), https://erlc.com/resource-library/statements/artificial-intelligence-an-evangelical-statement-of-principles (accessed 27 November 2019).

31 This links up to the Asilomar principle ‘Non-subversion and Human Control’.

32 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

33 Wallach, Wendell and Allen, Colin, Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right From Wrong (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

34 Nucci, Ezio Di, ‘Self-sacrifice and the trolley problem’ (2013) 26 Philosophical Psychology 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 662.

35 Goodall, Noah J, ‘Machine Ethics and Automated Vehicles’, in Meyer, Gereon and Beiker, Sven (eds.), Road Vehicle Automation (Springer, 2014), 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Awad, Edmondet al, ‘The Moral Machine Experiment’ (2018) 563 Nature, 59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

36 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar, note 29.

37 Ibid.

38 Floridi et al, note 4.

39 Compare John Rawls, ‘A Theory of Justice’ (Cambridge, MA, USA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971); The World Bank, ‘Human Rights and Economics: Tensions and Positive Relationships’, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-1331068268558/Report_Development_Fragility_Human_Rights.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

40 Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI), ‘Beijing AI Principles’ (28 May 2019), https://www.baai.ac.cn/blog/beijing-ai-principles (accessed 27 November 2019).

41 The debate is also linked to the general role of human rights and corresponding economic obligations. Some posit that human rights unfold economic obligations (e.g., Human Rights and the SDG – Pursuing Synergies, https://www.universal-rights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/RAPPORT_2017_HUMAN-RIGHTS-SDGS-PURSUING-SYNERGIES_03_12_2017_digital_use-2.pdf (accessed 12 November 2017); others are claiming that human rights do not entail an economic dimension or to a lesser extent (Robert Nozick: ‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia’).

42 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Right to Health, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf (accessed 15 November 2019).

43 A/RES/70/1.

44 Ricardo Vinuesa et al, ‘The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals’, arXiv (2019), https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1905/1905.00501.pdf (accessed 12 September 2019); Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo, ‘Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work’, NBER Working Paper No. 24196 (2018).

45 ‘Task of Eradicating Poverty Must be Met “With a Sense of Urgency”, says Deputy UN Chief’, UN News Centre (8 May 2017), https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/05/task-of-eradicating-poverty-must-be-met-with-a-sense-of-urgency-says-deputy-un-chief/ (accessed 2 September 2019); 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed 12 November 2019); The World Bank, note 41.

46 Joseph Benninton-Castro, ‘AI is a Game-Changer in the Fight against Hunger and Poverty. Here’s Why’, NBC News (12 June 2017), https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/tech/ai-game-changer-fight-against-hunger-poverty-here-s-why-ncna774696 (accessed 27 November 2019).

47 Compare A/RES/70/1.

48 The Ruggie Principles speak explicitly of ‘protect, respect and remedy’, which largely confirms the defence or claim right character of human rights.

49 German Data Ethics Commission, ‘Opinion of the Data Ethics Commission’ (October 2019), https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Fokusthemen/Gutachten_DEK_EN.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed 27 November 2019).

50 Etzioni, Amitai, ‘Are New Technologies the Enemy of Privacy?’ (2007) 20 Knowledge and Policy 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Lessig, Lawrence, ‘Privacy as Property’ (2002) 69 Social Research 1, 247Google Scholar.

52 Pagallo et al, ‘On Good AI Governance: 14 Priority Actions, a S.M.A.R.T. Model of Governance, and a Regulatory Toolbox’ (2019), https://www.eismd.eu/pdf/AI4PEOPLE%20On%20Good%20Ai%20%20Governance%202019.pdf. (accessed 27 November 2019).

53 Compare Future of Life Institute: Asilomar AI Principles (2017), https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/ (accessed 27 November 2019).

54 Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI), ‘Beijing AI Principles’ (28 May 2019), https://www.baai.ac.cn/blog/beijing-ai-principles (accessed 12 November 2019).

55 Steltzer, William, ‘Population Statistics, the Holocaust, and the Nuremberg Trials’ (1998) 24 Population and Development Review 3, 511–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Compare with General Data Protection Regulation Article 5.

57 German Data Ethics Commission, ‘Opinion of the Data Ethics Commission’ (October 2019), https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Fokusthemen/Gutachten_DEK_EN.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed 22 November 2019).

58 Reigada, Antonio T, ‘The Principle of Proportionality and the Fundamental Right to Personal Data Protection: The Biometric Data Processing’ (2012) 17 Lex Electronica 2Google Scholar.

59 Uyghur Human Rights Project, ‘China’s Repression and Internment of Uyghurs: U.S. Policy Responses’, House Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific (26 September 2018), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA05/20180926/108718/HHRG-115-FA05-Wstate-TurkelN-20180926.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

60 Simoncelli, Tania and Wallace, Helen, ‘Expanding Databases, Declining Liberties’ (2006) 19 Genewatch: A Bulletin of the Committee for Responsible Genetics 1, 3Google ScholarPubMed.

61 Wallace, Helen, ‘The UK National DNA Database: Balancing Crime Detection, Human Rights and Privacy’ (2006) 7 EMBO Reports 26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Wallace, HMet al, ‘Forensic DNA Databases – Ethical and Legal Standards: A Global Review’ (2014) 4 Egyptian Journal of Forensic Science 3Google Scholar, 57.

62 Johnston, Ed, ‘Brain Scanning and Lie Detectors: The Implications for Fundamental Defence Rights’ (2016) 22 European Journal of Current Legal Issues 2Google Scholar.

63 Federal Court of Justice of Germany, Dispensation of Justice 1954 BGH, 16.02.1954-1 StR 578/53.

64 Federal Court of Justice of Germany, Dispensation of Justice 2003 BGH, v. 24.06.2003-VI ZR 327/02.

65 Floridi et al, note 4.

66 Elle Hunt, ‘Tay, Microsoft’s AI Chatbot, Gets a Crash Course in Racism from Twitter’, The Guardian (24 March 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-ai-chatbot-gets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter (accessed 27 November 2019).

67 Julia Angwin et al, ‘Machine Bias’, ProPublica (23 May 2016), https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing (accessed 27 November 2019).

68 Obermeyer, Ziadet al, ‘Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations’ 366 Science, 447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Frederik Z Borgesius, ‘Discrimination, Artificial Intelligence, and Algorithmic Decision-Making’, Council of Europe: Strasbourg (2018), https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73 (accessed 27 November 2019).

70 Compare UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, note 23.

71 Compare Strobel, Lee P, Reckless Homicide? Ford’s Pinto Trial (South Bend and Books, 1980Google Scholar).

72 Council of Europe, ‘Unboxing Artificial Intelligence: 10 steps to protect Human Rights’, https://rm.coe.int/unboxing-artificial-intelligence-10-steps-to-protect-human-rights-reco/1680946e64 p. 18 (accessed 27 November 2019).

73 Artificial Intelligence Cluster Steering Committee Quebec, ‘Montréal Declaration for Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence’, https://ai.quebec/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/News-release_Launch_Montreal_Declaration_AI-04_12_18.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

74 David Kaye, ‘Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, Open Letter to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1 June 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Legislation/OL-DEU-1-2017.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

75 Jack M Balkin, ‘Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation’, Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 615 (2018); Maja Brkan, ‘Freedom of Expression and Artificial Intelligence: On Personalisation, Disinformation and (Lack of) Horizontal Effect of the Charter (17 March 2019), http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3354180 (accessed 27 November 2019).

76 Habermas, Juergen, The Theory of Communicative Action (Boston, MA, USA: Beacon Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

77 Compare UN Guiding Principles, note 23.

78 ‘Germany Starts Enforcing Hate Speech Law’, BBC (1 January 2018), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42510868 (accessed 30 August 2019).

79 Frank La Rue, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council (16 May 2011),

https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf (accessed 12 September 2019).

80 David Kaye, ‘Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, Open Letter to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1 June 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Legislation/OL-DEU-1-2017.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

81 Floridi et al, note 4.

82 Compare Asimov’s Law: ‘A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm’.

83 Ibid.

84 Uyghur Human Rights Project, ‘China’s Repression and Internment of Uyghurs: U.S. Policy Responses’, House Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific (26 September 2018), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA05/20180926/108718/HHRG-115-FA05-Wstate-TurkelN-20180926.pdf (accessed 27 November 2019).

85 Lily Kuo, ‘“If You Enter a Camp, You Never Come Out”: Inside China’s War on Islam’, The Guardian (11 January 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/11/if-you-enter-a-camp-you-never-come-out-inside-chinas-war-on-islam (accessed 27 November 2019).

86 Paul Mozur, ‘One Month, 500,000 Face Scans: How China Is Using A.I. to Profile a Minority’, New York Times (14 April 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/technology/china-surveillance-artificial-intelligence-racial-profiling.html (accessed 27 November 2019).

87 Federica Mogherini, ‘Speech by HR/VP Mogherini at the Plenary Session of the European Parliament on the State of the EU–China Relations’ (11 September 2018), https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/50337/speech-hrvp-mogherini-plenary-session-european-parliament-state-eu-china-relations_en (accessed 26 November 2019). See German Parliament Document 19/5544 (November 2018).

88 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reviews the report of China’ (13 August 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23452&LangID=E (accessed 27 November 2019).

89 Zenz, Adrian, ‘Thoroughly Reforming Them Towards a Healthy Heart Attitude: China’s Political Re-education Campaign in Xinjiang’ (2019) 38 Central Asian Survey 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 102.

90 Rian Thum, ‘China’s Mass Internment Camps Have No Clear End in Sight’, Foreign Policy (22 August 2018), https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/22/chinas-mass-internment-camps-have-no-clear-end-insight/ (accessed 27 November 2019).

91 Ibid; Zenz, note 88.

92 Compare Adam J. Sulkowski, ‘Blockchain, Business Supply Chains, Sustainability, and Law: The Future of Governance, Legal Frameworks, and Lawyers?’ (2019) 43 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 2, 303–345.

93 Ellen Zimiles and Tim Mueller, ‘How AI Is Transforming the Fight against Money Laundering’, World Economic Forum (17 January 2019), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/how-ai-can-knock-the-starch-out-of-money-laundering/ (accessed 27 November 2019).