Abstract:Central to a number of scholarly, regulatory, and public conversations about algorithmic accountability is the question of who should have access to documentation that reveals the inner workings, intended function, and anticipated consequences of algorithmic systems, potentially establishing new routes for impacted publics to contest the operations of these systems. Currently, developers largely have a monopoly on information about how their systems actually work and are incentivized to maintain their own ignorance about aspects of how their systems affect the world. Increasingly, legislators, regulators and advocates have turned to assessment documentation in order to address the gap between the public's experience of algorithmic harms and the obligations of developers to document and justify their design decisions. However, issues of standing and expertise currently prevent publics from cohering around shared interests in preventing and redressing algorithmic harms; as we demonstrate with multiple cases, courts often find computational harms non-cognizable and rarely require developers to address material claims of harm. Constructed with a triadic accountability relationship, algorithmic impact assessment regimes could alter this situation by establishing procedural rights around public access to reporting and documentation. Developing a relational approach to accountability, we argue that robust accountability regimes must establish opportunities for publics to cohere around shared experiences and interests, and to contest the outcomes of algorithmic systems that affect their lives. Furthermore, algorithmic accountability policies currently under consideration in many jurisdictions must provide the public with adequate standing and opportunities to access and contest the documentation provided by the actors and the judgments passed by the forum.

The Power of Absence: Thinking with Archival Theory in Algorithmic Design

Gatekeeping Algorithms with Human Ethical Bias: The ethics of algorithms in archives, libraries and society

Experimenting With Algorithms and Memory-Making: Lived Experience and Future-Oriented Ethics in Critical Data Science

The right to audit and power asymmetries in algorithm auditing

Why Algorithms Remain Unjust: Power Structures Surrounding Algorithmic Activity

Algorithms as fetish: Faith and possibility in algorithmic work

The limits of the imaginary: Challenges to intervening in future speculations of memory, data, and algorithms

Comprehensiveness of Archives: A Modern AI-enabled Approach to Build Comprehensive Shared Cultural Heritage

Intersectional Inquiry, on the Ground and in the Algorithm

Algorithmic governmentality and the space of ethics: Examples from ‘People Analytics’

Forgetting Practices in the Data Sciences

An Algorithmic Equity Toolkit for Technology Audits by Community Advocates and Activists

Lessons from Archives: Strategies for Collecting Sociocultural Data in Machine Learning

Evidence of What, for Whom? The Socially Contested Role of Algorithmic Bias in a Predictive Policing Tool

Archives in action. The impact of digital technology on archaeological recording strategies and ensuing open research archives

Algorithmic bias: Looking beyond data bias to ensure algorithmic accountability and equity

The Biography of an Algorithm: Performing algorithmic technologies in organizations

Algorithmic Subjectivities

Situated algorithms: a sociotechnical systemic approach to bias

A relationship and not a thing: A relational approach to algorithmic accountability and assessment documentation

School Choice Algorithms: Data Infrastructures, Automation, and Inequality