Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Regulation and Data: A Discriminatory Process?

4/20/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business.


With the increasing usage of data mining and forecasting in the private sector, it seems inevitable that the public sector will try to leverage these technologies to become more efficient and to better allocate resources. But, as we discussed in the last few of my blog posts, this implementation will not come without potential legal hiccups from the United States judiciary. Although concepts like non-delegation and due process can seem somewhat intangible to the average citizen, the one area where machine learning can greatly impact the lives of individuals will be whether its usage will lead to discriminatory practices.


The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination by states, and since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bolling v. Sharpe, we see that there may even be a Fifth Amendment claim involving a violation of the Due Process clause. [1] However, this standard is not the standard the federal government has to explain in disproportionate impact cases.  Specifically, “a purpose to discriminate must be present.” [2]
This may seem a little nebulous, but in terms of administrative law, this just means that if the federal government is challenged in court and its action is found to constituted disparate treatment, then we see the courts apply different levels of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, and rational basis review).

Although it is very possible that those who develop algorithms that federal agencies might use can be inherently discriminatory (such as building targets of minorities into the algorithm), it doesn’t seem on its surface that these algorithms are intentionally discriminatory.  If we recollect earlier discussions of data analysis, we see that algorithms are a black box. [3] There are programs and plots that one can you to try to peek into the box, but we don’t necessarily see how the algorithm snoops over the data.  There may be very complicated interactions between the predictors, but because most machine learning techniques are non-parametric (there is no algebraic equation describing the model), we don’t even get to see what variables are used and what their coefficients are.

What does this mean for plaintiffs who bring disparate treatment cases against the government? They will have to look at the effects of the algorithm in action.  This means that plaintiffs might have to prove that one class, such as their race, was consistently subjected to different outcomes than individuals of other races.

This might not be an entirely difficult burden to overcome.  When you develop algorithms, you have to battle test them through using “training” data and then testing their validity on “test” data.  However, if one thinks carefully about how this data was collected, it is very possible that the algorithm itself might create disparate treatment to certain protected classes if the historical mechanisms that influenced the outcomes of this training data were inherently discriminatory.  In other words, if the historical data comes from racist institutions or actions, the machine learning algorithm might lead to confirmation of these racist policies.

Moving forward, when governments implement policies, they will have to be conscious of using race or gender classifiers in predictive analytics.  Sometimes, even the development of technology to collect data to better allocate scarce resources can lead to discriminatory outcomes. The recent White House report on the usage of big data includes a case study of Boston, which developed an app for residents to report potholes. If enough residents reported the potholes in a certain area, then the city would send out workers to fix it. However, the project neglected to account for the fact that individuals with smartphones are most likely wealthier than those without. As a result, potholes got fixed in higher income areas of the city rather than the poorer parts. [4]

Although there will be a strong burden for those individuals impacted discriminatorily by government usage of machine learning, the task will not be impossible.  Sloppy statistical work or agencies not considering all costs of using these algorithms could be presented to courts to determine whether formulated rules are arbitrary and capricious or discriminatory.  This legal issue is a reminder that even if these algorithms promise to provide sound forecasting, if you put discriminatory data and assumptions into these algorithms, you will get discrimination as an outcome.

[1]. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954)
[2]. Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398, 403 (1945)
[3]. Berk, Richard. Statistical Learning from a Regression Perspective, Springer (2016).
[4]. U.S. Executive Office of the President, “Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values” (2014). http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_ privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf
​
Photo


The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​