Skip to main content

Algorithms and Big Tech

There has been a movement to force Big Tech to reveal their algorithms. To answer why you show X above Y for a particular search query. Courts, till now have more or less shied away from prospects of such compulsion.

However, in one of the first cases, a Japanese court asked a hotel booking website to disclose their algorithm when a hotel owner alleged the booking website of giving biased results. Similar demands have been made in other parts of the world.

European Union has been deliberating on an act regulating algorithms: the Digital Services Act. That will essentially compel tech Companies to reveal their algorithms to users (and not merely regulators).

China passed a new set of regulations this year which gave users the right to opt out of algorithm-driven feed. The regulations stipulate that tech companies have to inform users in a conspicuous way if any algorithms are being used to push content to them. And, if yes they have the option to opt out of targeted algorithmic recommendations.

Big Tech vehemently argues algorithms as trade secrets. Google’s search algorithm is protected by Alphabet Inc., as the Coca-cola recipe is by Coca-Cola.

And to their defence, a search engine’s business is very hard to distinguish. Giving away their algorithms may result lead to possible infringement and copying. Although Google dominates the search market, disclosing algorithms may have some repercussions for the industry in general.

In India, multiple cases are pending with regard to results shown by search engines, with the most recent being MakeMyTrip v Booking.com. However, given the state of data protection law, revealing the algorithms is still a far cry for the Indian law.

Disclosing algorithms is important as it may potentially:

·       Answer why some products are listed higher on a search engine (address competition concerns)

·       Answer why political posts are shown to you over other political posts (possibly mitigate the rise of echo-chambers and political manipulation)

·       Force companies (and Operating systems) to provide freedom to users. For instance to enable them to decide if they want a feed driven by an algorithm or not. As Apple recently gave an option to users to opt out of Apps tracking their use of other apps.

Any regulation by the EU (as opposed to China where much of the international tech is banned) will have a worldwide impact, as Big Tech operates globally and will be expected to treat users of other continents (somewhat) fairly. Most importantly, whenever algorithms could be disclosed, Big Tech will have to be more responsible for their actions.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Smriti Irani and Twitter Discourse: A Rant

This is why I am not particularly a fan of Twitter legal discourse. People pass court's observations as the final judgment. They are either political or just naive.  Court has given an observation on a section 151 application (in a defamation suit) which only asked websites to remove the social media posts which allegations against Ms. Zoe Irani i.e. Smriti Irani's daughter. The court passed the ad-interim injunction and observed that there is no prima facie evidence that Silly Souls restaurant (the hotel in dispute) belongs to Ms. Zoe Irani.  Now the 'interim' part is missing from the discourse.  The court has merely given an interim order on the basis of an interim application from one party. The court has not even begun listening to the other party. We do not know what Ms. Zoe Irani's team has presented before the court. The merits of the case will be decided way longer than that.  Unfortunately, unlike most Twitter users, courts are not that efficient. But folks...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mens Rea in Complicity in Genocide

( I braved an attempt to publish a paper in my 2nd year of law school in Harvard law journal. I failed.) What is genocide? The term was originated in 1940s by Polish lawyer Raphel Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe to describe the 'killing of individuals for the groups they belong to'. He defined genocide as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." [1] . In resolution 96 (I) of 1 December 1946 entitled 'The crime of genocide', the UN General Assembly affirmed that genocide was a crime- and implicitly a crime in its own right, since the label 'crime against humanity' was not used-under customary law. [2] The Convention was signed on 9 December 1948. The definition of genocide as laid down in the 1948 Genocide Convention includes three main elements, namely: i) the intent to destroy in whole o...
Post a Comment
Read more