US law may criminalize researchers running platform fairness tests

Evidence

But the playing field for this crucial work is hardly level: as we write, a legal case is going through the US courts in which researchers from the University of Michigan and Northeastern University are challenging the constitutionality of the US government’s interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that prima facie would block researchers from running fairness tests on how platforms present the world. The defense of earlier reference points to social knowledge and critical social research risks becoming engulfed in the disturbing trend in many countries toward political authoritarianism. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 441

Categorization

• QUESTION: What was the outcome of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case against UM and Northeastern researchers? Tracking this would update the book’s snapshot of the fairness-testing legal landscape.
• XREF: connects to: Algorithms that correct documented bias may themselves violate equal protection law — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1207; Algorithms correcting real sentencing disparities could violate equal protection law; US law requires governmental decisions be explainable, constraining opaque AI use — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1199

Broader Connections

• Algorithms that correct documented bias may themselves violate equal protection law #expands (0.88) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1207
• Algorithms correcting real sentencing disparities could violate equal protection law #exemplifies (0.82)
• US law requires governmental decisions be explainable, constraining opaque AI use #qualifies (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1199