Search

Algorithms are often tainted with bias that could negatively affect subjects' lives in many aspects. But while policymakers and scholars tend to focus their attention on methods to Jix the bias within the algorithm or its output, they neglect a crucial piece of the puzzle: when companies discover bias and fix it in the algorithmic output, they do so behind the scenes. While such a move might debias the output, society remains in the dark about its existence or how it might have affected the outcome. Sociely thus misses a unique opportunity to study social and cognitive biases that shape our civil rights and liberties today-and might become more important in the future with the rise of automation. We thus propose a new mechanism to aid in the study of bias and its elimination, not only in algorithms but also in society. We call it Bias Notification Duty (BND). This article lays the groundwork for this new social-legal responsibility by offering a dilfevent viewpoint on bias, algorithms, and society. We propose that the state imposes a duty (BND) on companies and their employees to, when bias is found, provide a notice to a selected governing body that will further study it and, upon evaluation of its source and impact, will notify those who are both directly and indirectly affected by it accordingly. Affected parties may include other companies that could be subjected to similar bias, individuals that were potentially harmed by it, researchers in relevant fields, and society as a whole. Upon setting the proposal, we examine the rationales behind it and discuss its hurdles. With such acknowledgment, we argue that BNDs are an important legal tool that should be used to aid in de-biasing our society, especially if the world will eventually be algorithmically driven and bias will be even more obscured by technological companies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a clear tension in the law between exercises of state police power in land-use regulation including zoning laws, on the one hand, and takings under the Fifth Amendment, on the other. Courts have struggled to find a dividing line between the two, but for their efforts what we are left only with is a disjointed array of legal tests, each one as flawed as the next. Legal theorists, for their part, must shoulder some of the blame--no single theory can identify the point at which community need outweighs private property rights. Even well-developed theories thus fail to translate into practical application. But this Article is resolved to bridge that gap. This Article presents a novel theory that provides a unified normative framework for evaluating government interference with private property. It seeks to identify the tipping point at which private property rights must give way to the needs of the community at large. This approach, which I refer to as Property's Tipping Point, is a burden-shifting framework that accommodates competing theories of property. It builds on landmark Supreme Court cases to provide a unified standard for courts to apply in resolving cases of regulatory takings and exactions. The approach presented in this Article has both a substantive and a procedural component. It develops two tests that work dynamically to identify the point where community need trumps owner autonomy: the indispensability of needs and the generality of action. The former requires that any government interference with private property is designed to promote community prosperity. The latter test--the generality of action--confines the government to the boundaries of the rule of law. It is only by passing these two tests that a government authority may reach Property's Tipping Point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]