There has been quite a lot of discussion about how artificial intelligence (AI) will impact every a part of our society, from schoolwork to the music industry.
But as policymakers proceed to debate how best to manage AI, there may be one query that’s receiving little attention: How ready are our freedom of knowledge laws to take care of recent technologies?
Freedom of knowledge laws are essential because they assist keep governments accountable and transparent. Without it, essential misconduct can remain secret.
As technology continues to advance rapidly, it’s time to fundamentally rethink Australia's freedom of knowledge system to make it fit for purpose in 2024 and beyond.
Transparency laws are critical to automation issues
You could also be wondering what Freedom of Information (FOI) laws need to do with AI and automation. A very good example of the 2 working together is the recent Horizon scandal within the UK.
This scandal occurred when a pc accounting system called Horizon incorrectly identified deficits within the funds of post offices across the United Kingdom. The British Postal Authority has prosecuted 700 postal employees based on its findings into the system. Some ended up in prison for fraud and theft, while many others were financially ruined.
It has been described as “possibly the most important miscarriage of justice within the history of the United Kingdom”.
The Horizon scandal within the UK has shown how essential freedom of knowledge laws are in uncovering automation problems.
Andy Rain/EPA
Importantly, activists within the UK made extensive use of FOI to acquire information concerning the system. For example, a request from a number one activist resulted within the disclosure of a postal service document that used offensive and racist terms to categorize subpostmasters under investigation.
An additional FOI request revealed that government agencies were informed of possible problems with the system as early as May 2013.
This debacle should remind Australia of the impact of using AI and automation in government systems.
It also needs to prompt us to query whether our laws are meeting the unique challenges of technology, particularly as Australia's transparency laws are more restrictive than those within the UK. In the UK there is no such thing as a absolute exception for cabinet documents.
Reform urgently needed
AI regulation in Australia has been within the headlines recently with the discharge of the federal government's interim response to the Responsible AI consultation.
Although a crucial initiative, comparatively little attention has been paid to the necessity to update a few of our key transparency mechanisms.
For example, the federal government refused to implement a key suggestion from the 2023 Robodebt Royal Commission report. It really helpful repealing the Cabinet exemption (the supply allowing Cabinet documents to be exempt from disclosure) within the Freedom of Information Act.
Although the federal government stated that it “accepts or accepts in principle all 56 recommendations of the report,” it didn’t formally accept the liberty of knowledge suggestion. His response said this was as a result of the necessity to protect Cabinet confidentiality, collective responsibility and the giving of “frank and fearless advice from ministers and senior officials”.
The royal commission report also found that affected individuals and stakeholders experienced significant difficulties in obtaining details about how the Robodebt program worked, including through the Freedom of Information Act. These findings are significant because excessive secrecy of presidency information was one among the explanations Robodebt was in a position to proceed with impunity for therefore long.
What has to occur now?
The increasing use of automation and AI in government requires greater openness to the general public. To achieve a balance between transparency and Cabinet confidentiality, our paper recommends the next changes:
-
The Cabinet exception should be supplemented by a statutory public interest review and an appeal to the Information Commissioner, as within the UK
-
Limiting the scope of documents covered by Cabinet confidentiality
-
Shortening the disclosure period from 30 years to 10 years, consistent with several Australian states.
But we also call for a way more comprehensive review and modernization of the Freedom of Information Act.
The laws were passed in 1982, when printed documents were the norm and online government processes were of their infancy. Although some minor changes have been made since then, it has not yet undergone a serious overhaul to reflect the massive advances in technology.
As we and others previously argued in a 2020 technology and law paper, future reforms should include expanding the scope of the law to permit for greater openness and reduce trade secret exceptions (to forestall disclosure of the business information that are used for automated purposes). technologies). We have also suggested that government agencies ought to be required to more proactively disclose the small print of the automated technologies they use. This will help ensure our FOI regime is fit for purpose – in 2024 and beyond.
