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.

Algorithmic accountability in U.S. cities: Transparency, impact, and political economy

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

Algorithms and Decision-Making in the Public Sector

Algorithmic policing accountability: eight sociotechnical challenges

Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account

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

A Model for Evaluating Algorithmic Systems Accountability

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

Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning

From algorithmic accountability to digital governance

Big data surveillance across fields: Algorithmic governance for policing & regulation

The Public Algorithms Survey in Allegheny County

Algorithmic Accountability in Context. Socio-Technical Perspectives on Structural Causal Models

System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy

Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits

Why Algorithms Remain Unjust: Power Structures Surrounding Algorithmic Activity

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

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

Local Justice and the Algorithmic Allocation of Societal Resources

Algorithms as Social-Ecological-Technological Systems: an Environmental Justice Lens on Algorithmic Audits

Public administration, public leadership and the construction of public value in the age of the algorithm and ‘big data’