알고리즘(Algorithm)에 대한 법적 문제와 법적 규율 (Legal issues and legal regulations for algorithm)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 충북대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 과학기술과 법 / 9권 / 2호 / 211 ~ 230페이지
· 저자명 : 이부하

초록

Because this large amount of data is not accessible to manual evaluation, automated processes are required, using information technology and computing. Strictly speaking, they are algorithms that use precise rules of calculation to extract specific results from huge amounts of data. An algorithm is generally definable as a calculation rule, that the individual processing-steps clearly emerge from it and so a mechanically or electronically operating device can execute the rule. By going through these calculation rules, certain inputs are converted into an output, making the transformed version of the raw data. An important feature of algorithms is that, unlike the input data, the output data is not fully determined. The autocomplete feature introduced by Google works in such a way that when a term is entered into the search field it automatically displays so-called ‘predictions’ that are similar to or complete the current search term.
A clear judgment has proved difficult. Above all, the following questions were answered inconsistently. (1) Do automatically submitted search suggestions have their own potentially personality-infringing content? Do you affirm this. (2) Are the search suggestions Google's own content? And finally: (3) Is Google liable as offender or disturber? Some literature opinion denies its own content, as well as the making of foreign content by Google, as the proposals would be presented purely automatically and without interim review by Google. It ignores the fact that the display of the terms by Google and the criteria that determine whether a term is proposed, selected by Google and filters are used to hide certain content. For example, by programming the algorithm, Google provides certain input through the input. However, what in the end ‘output’ can not be conclusively foreseen. Thus, this corresponds to a statement of fact automatically based on certain factors, as an expression of opinion must be formed with some awareness, at least according to common understanding. It remains unclear who in this case is a offender and why it lacks intent. Because it seems outlandish that was not recognized by the search engine operator, that personality rights infringing word combinations are theoretically possible, so the blanket denial of any intent appears questionable.

영어초록

Because this large amount of data is not accessible to manual evaluation, automated processes are required, using information technology and computing. Strictly speaking, they are algorithms that use precise rules of calculation to extract specific results from huge amounts of data. An algorithm is generally definable as a calculation rule, that the individual processing-steps clearly emerge from it and so a mechanically or electronically operating device can execute the rule. By going through these calculation rules, certain inputs are converted into an output, making the transformed version of the raw data. An important feature of algorithms is that, unlike the input data, the output data is not fully determined. The autocomplete feature introduced by Google works in such a way that when a term is entered into the search field it automatically displays so-called ‘predictions’ that are similar to or complete the current search term.
A clear judgment has proved difficult. Above all, the following questions were answered inconsistently. (1) Do automatically submitted search suggestions have their own potentially personality-infringing content? Do you affirm this. (2) Are the search suggestions Google's own content? And finally: (3) Is Google liable as offender or disturber? Some literature opinion denies its own content, as well as the making of foreign content by Google, as the proposals would be presented purely automatically and without interim review by Google. It ignores the fact that the display of the terms by Google and the criteria that determine whether a term is proposed, selected by Google and filters are used to hide certain content. For example, by programming the algorithm, Google provides certain input through the input. However, what in the end ‘output’ can not be conclusively foreseen. Thus, this corresponds to a statement of fact automatically based on certain factors, as an expression of opinion must be formed with some awareness, at least according to common understanding. It remains unclear who in this case is a offender and why it lacks intent. Because it seems outlandish that was not recognized by the search engine operator, that personality rights infringing word combinations are theoretically possible, so the blanket denial of any intent appears questionable.

참고자료

· 없음