Dear reader, the newsletter you are about to read is not what I planned to write today. I intended to follow up on a previous issue and write down some thoughts on the Brazilian AI bill, maybe adding some notes on the newest European Parliament compromise text. But my plans were overcome by events, which means that today’s issue includes a personal rant, followed by the usual recommendations and otters. Feel free to skip ahead or come back in the next issue.
As some of you might be aware, supporters of the former Brazilian president stormed the presidential palace, the National Congress building, and the Supreme Court on 8 January. There are many things I want to say about this pathetic attempt at a putsch, but none of them come from any place of expertise or uniquely situated knowledge. So, it is unlikely I will inflict upon you a long read about this particular topic (though I am happy to provide whatever context I can for non-Brazilian readers if asked). Nonetheless, merely following these incidents takes a lot of headspace that would otherwise go into coming up with exciting topics for this newsletter.
Because, if I am being honest right now, I can write about little beyond grief today. Grief from the hundreds of thousands of pandemic deaths that the previous government could have avoided. Grief from the slow breakdown of whatever shared commitments to a more humane society that Brazil had reached after re-democratization in the 1980s. Grief from the cultural and scientific losses the country has suffered over the past few years and will take decades to address. And all this “systemic” grief coexists with more minor but no less painful losses at a more personal level, which I do not intend to detail here. But, since my writing plans for today got derailed by news of the loss of a former friend, I feel compelled to be a bit transparent about why I am not writing about the topics that bring (most of) you here.
These developments left me with little room to think about things other than grief (and anger) today. But, these developments notwithstanding, I am in a very good period in my personal and professional life. So, I am reminded of the words of Bubbles: “Ain’t no shame in holding on to grief, as long as you make room for other things.” For today, this means I will leave you with the usual recommendations and otter pictures, and the usual programming will return in the next issue.
My suggestions
Reading
Danilo Doneda, a towering figure in the Brazilian law and technology community, died on 4 December. He was a kind and insightful scholar and activist, who not only played a pivotal role in data protection in Brazil but shaped the following waves of scholars and practitioners in the field of digital rights. My personal interactions with Doneda were limited, so I leave you with obituaries written (in English and Portuguese) by people better qualified than me to give you a portrait of the individual and the lawyer.
When it comes to technical reading, I have two recommendations today. The first is an article by Simona Demková on semiautomated decision-making in the EU administration. She argues that the informatization of decision-making processes introduces qualitative changes in the role that information plays in administrative decisions. My summary does not do justice to her work, which provides interesting insights into AFSJ practices and, more generally, about the embedding of AI systems and other automation tools into administrative processes. Check out her summary here and then read the full paper.
My other scholarly recommendation also deals with EU administrative law. In a recent article, Joana Mendes maps how doctrinal thought in this field is constrained by uncritical subscription to a view that the EU administration is functionally similar to national administrations. This view builds upon the functional approach to comparative law and embeds into the EU administration a liberal view of administrative law that overlooks the unique role of EU administration in integrating legal orders and the roles private actors play in European administration. A functional view of the EU administration thus misses important parts of the picture.
I would also like to share with you a link to an article of mine that got published right after I finished my 2022 recap issue. In the paper “Reclaiming transparency: contesting the logics of secrecy within the AI Act”, now available in open access in European Law Open, Madalina Busuioc, Deirdre Curtin, and I show how the proposed AI Act downplays the role of transparency as disclosure, emphasizing instead forms of transparency through mediated communication. We then argue that this shift erodes accountability in the contexts in which high-risk AI systems, and push towards increased use of disclosure mechanisms and awareness of the limits of mediated forms of communication, such as explanations of AI systems.
Finally, I would like to point you towards two books on grief and what comes after. In Terry Pratchett’s Nation, the two young protagonists are forced to cope with the aftermath of a tsunami that leaves them stranded on an island with one another and dealing with the death of the people surrounding them. It is a heartwarming book about loss, moving forward, and reconstruction. Contrastingly, Iain M Banks’s Look to Windward is a story about not moving forward and the risks of being consumed by grief. At the same time, it is a highly imaginative book about colonialism, hyperintelligent artificial intelligence, and life in a post-scarcity society. I guess I could not have picked a more fitting time to read it.
Music
In memoriam O.
And now, it’s time for adorable animals
See you next time!