Simplification of administrative procedures through fully automated decision-making: The case of Norway

Wei zenboeck, Emily M. A icle Simpli ica ion o adminis a i e p ocedu es h ough ully au oma ed decision-making: The case o No way Adminis a i e Sciences P o ided in Coope a ion wi h: MDPI – Mul idisciplina y Digi al Publishing Ins i u e, Basel Sugges ed Ci a ion: Wei zenboeck, Emily M. (2021) : Simpli ica ion o adminis a i e p ocedu es h ough ully au oma ed decision-making: The case o No way, Adminis a i e Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, pp. 1-23, h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/admsci11040149 This Ve sion is a ailable a : h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/275267 S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen: Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den. Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen. So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen (insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en, gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e. Te ms o use: Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal and schola ly pu poses. You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public. I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence. h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ adminis a i e sciences A icle Simpli ica ion o Adminis a i e P ocedu es h ough Fully Au oma ed Decision-Making: The Case o No way Emily M. Wei zenboeck   Ci a ion: Wei zenboeck, Emily M.. 2021. Simpli ica ion o Adminis a i e P ocedu es h ough Fully Au oma ed Decision-Making: The Case o No way. Adminis a i e Sciences 11: 149. h ps://doi.o g/ 10.3390/admsci11040149 Recei ed: 31 Oc obe 2021 Accep ed: 29 No embe 2021 Published: 7 Decembe 2021 Publishe ’s No e: MDPI s ays neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a il- ia ions. Copy igh : © 2021 by he au ho . Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land. This a icle is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps:// c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Oslo Business School, Facul y o Social Sciences, OsloMe -Oslo Me opoli an Uni e si y, Piles ede 35, 0166 Oslo, No way; [email p o ec ed] Abs ac : No way has a high deg ee o digi alisa ion. In he public sec o , he e is a long adi ion o au oma ion o pa s o case managemen . This includes au oma ion o cases whe e a public sec o body makes a so-called indi idual adminis a i e decision, ha is, a decision made in he exe cise o public au ho i y h ough which he igh s o du ies o one o mo e speci ied p i a e pe sons a e de e mined. In he las i e yea s, a ious amendmen s o public sec o legisla ion we e p oposed by a numbe o go e nmen depa men s and agencies in No way o ensu e ha he ela i e adminis a i e agency has a legal basis o ca y ou ully au oma ed indi idual decisions. This is challenging bo h om an adminis a i e law and om a da a p o ec ion law s andpoin . Among he main easons o he mo e owa ds ully au oma ed legal decision-making ha a e men ioned in he p epa a o y wo ks o he p oposed amendmen s a e g ea e e iciency in decision-making, equal ea men o ci izens and a claim ha such decisions will be less p one o e o han human decisions. This pape examines his end in No way and iden i ies he s a u es and egula ions ha ha e been amended o a e in he p ocess o being amended. I analyses he measu es speci ied in hese amendmen s o sa egua d he indi idual pa y’s igh s, eedoms and legi ima e in e es s. Finally, i discusses he igh ope ha mus be walked o sa egua d impo an adminis a i e law p inciples and ules such as p o ec ion om a bi a y decisions, he audi al e nam pa em ule and he igh unde he Eu opean Union’s Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion no o be subjec o ully au oma ed decisions. Keywo ds: au oma ed decisions; adminis a i e decisions; ully au oma ed legal decision-making; algo i hms; au oma ion; simpli ica ion; da a p o ec ion; Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion; adminis- a i e law p inciples; No way 1. In oduc ion No way has a high deg ee o digi alisa ion, no leas in he public sec o . In 2020, No way was anked hi een h in he Uni ed Na ions (“UN”) e-go e nmen su ey o digi aliza ion in he public sec o ou o a o al o 193 coun ies (UN 2020). Bo h s a e and municipal o ganisa ions inc easingly o e se ices digi ally, and public use o such se ices is on he ise (No wegian Minis y o Fo eign A ai s 2019;OECD 2017). Wi hin he public sec o , No way has a adi ion o using compu e s and au oma ion o case p ocessing ha da es back se e al decades, wi h he i s o ally au oma ed ou ine– he Go e nmen Housing Bene i Sys em–al eady in use in he ea ly 1970s (Hildonen and Guls uen 2012;Scha um 2020). Since hen, he e has been e en mo e digi iza ion o documen s, ma e ials and da a and u he digi alisa ion o p ocesses in he public sec o . Fu he mo e, he a ailabili y o massi e o es o da a (Big Da a) coupled wi h access and inc eased compu ing powe a a lowe cos han e e be o e, ha e acili a ed he use o mo e au oma ion in case p ocessing (No wegian Minis y o Go e nmen Adminis a ion, Re o m and Chu ch A ai s 2012–2013). In a ious whi e pape s and s a egy documen s, he inc eased au oma ion o case p ocessing, as well as he ull o pa ial au oma ion o adminis a i e p ocedu es ha e b oadly been seen as posi i e and desi ous aims by he Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/admsci11040149 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 2 o 23 go e nmen (Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode nisa ion 2019;No wegian Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode nisa ion 2020;No wegian Minis y o Go e nmen Admin- is a ion, Re o m and Chu ch A ai s 2012–2013,No wegian Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode insa ion 2015–2016) and by a ious public sec o bodies and agencies (No we- gian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019). Among he ad an ages o au oma ion is ha i can esul in subs an ial e iciency gains and con ibu e o inc eased equal ea men o ci izens (No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019). The Law Commission on he Public Adminis a ion Ac (2019) has also s a ed ha au oma ed case p ocessing can bo h ensu e ha p ocedu al equi emen s o case p ocessing a e complied wi h as well as acili a e he co ec implemen a ion o igh s and obliga ions. Seen in his ligh , he mo e au oma ion he e is, he mo e e icien he public sec o becomes. E iciency is, o cou se, an admi able goal o s i e o as long as he undamen al adminis a i e law p inciples such as law ulness and con o mi y wi h s a u o y pu pose, equali y o ea men , objec i i y and impa iali y, p opo ionali y, legal ce ain y, anspa ency and he indi idual’s igh o be hea d, a e obse ed (Council o Eu ope 2018;G a e 2019). In No way, he main legisla ion ha se s down ules on case p ocessing by he public adminis a ion is he Public Adminis a ion Ac o 1967 (“PAA”) which en e ed in o o ce on 1s Janua y 1970. The PAA applies o ac i i ies ca ied ou by adminis a i e agencies. The e m “adminis a i e agency” comp ises all cen al and local go e nmen bodies, as well as any “p i a e legal pe son [ . . . ] in cases whe e such pe son makes indi idual decisions o issues egula ions”, c. . PAA Sec ion 1. An indi idual decision is a decision made in he exe cise o public au ho i y h ough which he igh s o du ies o one o mo e speci ied p i a e pe sons a e de e mined, c. . PAA Sec ion 2 i s pa ag aph le e s b, c . le e a. Al hough he PAA was amended se e al imes since i s enac men , i was only in 2001 ha signi ican amendmen s we e made o emo e ba ie s ha could impede elec onic case p ocessing. Th ough hese amendmen s, he e m “documen ” was made echnology- neu al and elec onic communica ion was equa ed wi h pape -based communica ion, also o public sec o pu poses. Ano he se o amendmen s o he PAA in 2013 s eng hened he public sec o ’s possibili y o communica ing elec onically bo h in e nally wi hin he public adminis a ion as well as ex e nally wi h he business sec o and he gene al public. The legal amewo k o acili a e digi iza ion, elec onic communica ion and au oma ion o case p ocessing in he public sec o has hus exis ed o se e al yea s. Pa ial case p ocessing whe e case o ice s use digi al suppo ools o assis hem wi h a ious pa s o case p ocessing and case managemen , is commonplace. This includes he use o decision- making suppo ools o assis case o ice s when a o mal indi idual decision pu suan o he PAA is o be made. As ega ds he use o ully au oma ed legal decision-making sys ems, his also appea s o be on he ise in ce ain sec o s o he public adminis a ion. Thus, o example, mos ax decisions conce ning indi idual axpaye s a e o ally au oma ed. As a e mo e han 70 pe cen o applica ions o he No wegian S a e Educa ional Loan Fund and he majo i y o applica ions o housing bene i s (Scha um 2020). Wi h he push owa ds u he digi alisa ion and digi al ans o ma ion as unde lined in No way’s digi al s a egy o he public sec o o 2019–2025 (Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode nisa ion 2019), one expec s an inc ease in he use o ully au oma ed legal decision-making sys ems. In ac , in he las i e yea s, a ious amendmen s o public sec o legisla ion we e p oposed by a numbe o go e nmen depa men s and agencies in No way o ensu e ha he ela i e adminis a i e agency has a legal basis o ca y ou ully au oma ed adminis a i e decisions in he case o ce ain speci ic asks o indi idual decisions. The issue o ully au oma ed indi idual decisions poses challenges bo h om an adminis a i e law as well as om a da a p o ec ion law s andpoin . Besides ha ing o comply wi h undamen al adminis a i e law p inciples as abo emen ioned, a decision ha is “based solely on au oma ed p ocessing, including p o iling, which p oduces legal e ec s conce ning [an indi idual] o simila ly p oduces e ec s conce ning him o he o simila ly signi ican ly a ec s him o he ” is subjec o A icle 22 o he Eu opean Union’s Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 3 o 23 (“EU”) Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion 2016/679 (“GDPR”) (my emphasis). Indi idual decisions by go e nmen agencies, by de ini ion, would hus all wi hin GDPR A icle 22 when such decisions a e based “solely on au oma ed p ocessing”. Pu suan o GDPR A icle 22(1), an indi idual has he igh o no be subjec o such ully au oma ed legal decisions. Howe e , GDPR A icle 22(1) does no apply i he e is a legal basis o such a ully au oma ed decision pu suan o GDPR A icle 22(2) and, in he case o special ca ego ies o pe sonal da a, a legal basis pu suan o GDPR A icle 22(4). One such legal basis—and he one ha is mo e pe inen o p ocessing by he public sec o —is ha he solely au oma ed p ocessing is au ho ized by ei he EU o na ional law “which also lays down sui able measu es o sa egua d he da a subjec ’s igh s and eedoms and legi ima e in e es s”, c. . GDPR A icle 22(2)(b). I is his equi emen o a legal basis in, in e alia, na ional law, ha appea s o be he eason behind he lu y o legisla i e amendmen s o public sec o legisla ion–bo h p ima y legisla ion (i.e., s a u es) and seconda y legisla ion (i.e., egula ions)– ha ha e been p oposed o passed in No way in he las i e yea s, i.e., since he en y in o o ce o he GDPR. This pape iden i ies and examines he a ious amendmen s o public sec o legisla ion— bo h s a u es and egula ions— ha ha e been passed in No way in he las ew yea s as well as hose ha ha e been p oposed and a e s ill pending. The ocus is di ec ed on amendmen s ha pe mi ully au oma ed legal decision-making by public sec o bodies and agencies. The scope and wo ding o such amendmen s a e analyzed o iden i y whe he he legisla o laid down any limi a ions, equi emen s, measu es o o he sa egua ds ega ding he use o ully au oma ed decisions. The amendmen s a e hen examined in ligh o he undamen al p inciples o No wegian public adminis a i e law and he igh no o be subjec o ully au oma ed legal decision-making pu suan o he GDPR. This pape will ques ion whe he he piecemeal app oach aken so a in No way is conduci e o ha ing clea , p ecise and o eseeable legal bases ha a e sui ed o ull au oma ion. Though he s udy looks a he No wegian implemen a ion o GDPR A icle 22 in he public sec o , i is likely o be o in e es o o he Eu opean Economic A ea (“EEA”) coun ies ha a e s ill delibe a ing on he implica ions and scope o GDPR A icle 22. 2. Resea ch Ques ions and Me hodological Ou line 2.1. Resea ch Ques ions The aim o his pape is wo old. The pape i s ca ies ou iden i ica ion and mapping o legisla ion ha has been amended and as well as o p oposals o amendmen o legisla ion ha is s ill pending which gi e a legal basis o public adminis a ion agencies o bodies o issue indi idual decisions ha a e solely based on au oma ed p ocessing (also e e ed in his pape as “ ully au oma ed legal decisions”) wi h ega ds o ce ain ypes o p ocessing. The mapping exe cise also includes iden i ying amendmen s o s a u es ha only consis o a p o ision enabling he issue o egula ions o enable adminis a ion agencies o issue ully au oma ed legal decisions. Bo h p ima y and seconda y legisla ion a e he objec o he s udy. The mapping exe cise also iden i ies any limi a ions included in he wo ding o he amendmen o p oposed amendmen ha ci cumsc ibe o se equi emen s on he ype o decision ha can be ully au oma ed, as well as any o he measu es ha a e exp essly men ioned in he wo ding o he amendmen o p oposed amendmen o sa egua d he indi idual’s igh s, eedoms and legi ima e in e es s. Following his, he pape hen discusses he e icacy o he limi a ions and measu es in he amended legisla ion o in he p oposed amendmen s in ligh o he equi emen o “sui able measu es” laid down in GDPR A icle 22 and he ules unde lying No wegian public adminis a i e law. Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 4 o 23 2.2. Me hodological Ou line A documen sea ch was ca ied ou in wo da abases ha con ain a ious No we- gian legal sou ces— he go e nmen ’s public da abase “Regje ingen.no” and he Lo da a da abase ha is un by he Lo da a ounda ion. Fi s ly, a documen sea ch was made in he Regje ingen.no da abase o all documen s ha con ain he s ing “au oma ise e a gjø else ” (in English: au oma ed decisions). Among he documen s con ained in his da abase a e p epa a o y wo ks o legisla ion such as p oposals o legisla ion o amendmen s o exis ing legisla ion, law commission epo s on speci ic legal issues (known in No wegian as “No sk o en lige u edninge ” o “NOUs”) and commen s and eplies o public consul a ions on p oposed legisla ion. I also con ains o he documen s and epo s such as whi e pape s, iscal budge s and go e nmen epo s, plans and s a egies. The Regje ingen.no da abase includes all p oposals o new s a u es and p oposals o amend exis ing s a u es since he legisla i e session o 1997–1998. Following he documen sea ch in he Regje ingen.no da abase, he esul s o he sea ch we e analyzed and all p oposals o legisla ion o amendmen s o exis ing legisla ion we e iden i ied. A sea ch o each o he iden i ied p oposed amendmen s and new legisla ion was hen made in he Lo da a da abase o check hei s a us (i.e., whe he hey had been passed by Pa liamen ) and, i so, wha he inal ex o he enac ed amendmen o new legisla ion was. The Lo da a da abase con ains legisla ion (bo h s a u e and egula ions) ha has been enac ed, including legisla ion ha has been passed by he S o ing ( he No wegian Pa liamen ) e en i i has no ye come in o e ec , as well as ab oga ed legisla ion. Howe e , he Lo da a da abase does no always include p oposals o legisla ion o p oposals o amend legisla ion ha is s ill pending public consul a ion o s ill o be deba ed in he S o ing, ha is, ha ha e no ye been passed by he S o ing. Hence he use o bo h he Regje ingen.no and he Lo da a da abase. Fu he mo e, o ensu e ha no ele an s a u es o egula ions we e inad e en ly omi ed in he Regje ing.no sea ch, he same sea ch s ing was sea ched in he Lo da a da abase. S a u es o egula ions which only apply o a empo a y pe iod which expi es by o be o e he end o 2021, o example, o p o ide subsidies o ce ain mon hs du ing he COVID-19 pandemic, ha e been omi ed om his s udy. Al hough he sea ch in Regje ingen.no was ca ied ou in he i s week o Augus 2021, he s a us o he p oposals o amendmen s ha had no been discussed o passed by he S o ing was checked in he hi d week o Oc obe 2021 and he indings we e upda ed acco dingly. 3. Theo e ical F amewo k 3.1. Sa egua ds unde he Pe sonal Da a Ac and he GDPR 3.1.1. A icle 22 on Fully Au oma ed Decision-Making Though a membe s a e o he EEA, No way is no a membe s a e o he EU and hus, EU egula ions do no ha e di ec applica ion in No wegian law. The GDPR was he e o e inco po a ed in o No wegian law by he Pe sonal Da a Ac o 2018, c. . Sec ion 1. Acco ding o GDPR A icle 22(1), an indi idual has a “ igh no o be subjec o a decision based solely on au oma ed p ocessing, including p o iling, which p oduces legal e ec s conce ning him o he o simila ly signi ican ly a ec s him o he ”. Howe e , as u he discussed below, A icle 22(1) does no apply in espec o h ee ypes o decisions speci ied in A icle 22(2). As s a ed ea lie in his pape , an indi idual decision pu suan o he PAA is, by de ini ion, a decision ha de e mines he igh s o du ies o one o mo e speci ied pe sons and hus alls wi hin he p o isions o GDPR A icle 22 when i is “based solely on au oma ed p ocessing” (my emphasis). Solely au oma ed decision-making is desc ibed as “ he abili y o make decisions by echnological means wi hou human in e en ion” (A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y 2018). To quali y as human in ol emen , he public body o agency ha de e mines he pu poses and means o he p ocessing (i.e., as da a con olle ) mus ensu e ha any o e sigh o he decision is meaning ul and no a oken ges u e. In o he wo ds, “i should Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 5 o 23 be ca ied ou by someone who has he au ho i y and compe ence o change he decision” (A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y 2018). As explained by Byg a e and Mendoza, “[e] en i a decision is o mally asc ibed o a pe son, i is o be ega ded as based solely on au oma ed p ocessing i a pe son does no ac i ely assess he esul o he p ocessing p io o i s o maliza ion as a decision” (Mendoza and Byg a e 2017). 3.1.2. In e p e ing A icle 22(1) The e has been much discussion among da a p o ec ion schola s on whe he GDPR A icle 22(1) is o be in e p e ed as a gene al p ohibi ion o as a igh o be exe cised a he choice o he da a subjec . (Mendoza and Byg a e 2017;Tosoni 2021;Wach e e al. 2017). I GDPR A icle 22(1) is in e p e ed as a p ohibi ion, da a con olle s would basically no be allowed o make indi idual decisions solely based on au oma ed p ocessing unless one o he excep ions speci ied in A icle 22(2) applies. Acco ding o GDPR A icle 22(2), solely au oma ed decision-making is pe mi ed: (a) i i “is necessa y o en e ing in o, o pe o mance o , a con ac be ween he da a subjec and a da a con olle ”, (b) i i “is au ho ised by Union o Membe S a e law o which he con olle is subjec and which also lays down sui able measu es o sa egua d he da a subjec ’s igh s and eedoms and legi ima e in e es s”, o (c) i “i is based on he da a subjec ’s explici consen ”. Con ac o ma ion o pe o mance is no a sui able legal basis o p ocessing o pe sonal da a in he con ex o he exe cise o public au ho i y. No is explici consen a sui able legal basis because o he unequal ba gaining posi ion and he imbalance in powe dynamics be ween, on one side, he adminis a i e agency and, on he o he side, he indi iduals o whom such decisions apply. Thus, i one we e o in e p e A icle 22(1) as a p ohibi ion, he use o ully au oma ed indi idual decisions pu suan o GDPR A icle 22(1) will only be law ul as long as such decisions a e au ho ized by EU o No wegian law and p o ided he sa egua ds speci ied in A icle 22(2)(b) a e in place. Howe e , i GDPR A icle 22(1) is in e p e ed as a igh , he use o ully au oma ed decisions would only be es ic ed whe e he da a subjec has exp essly objec ed o such decisions. This would mean ha da a con olle s such as adminis a i e agencies would be ee o issue decisions based solely on au oma ed p ocessing, bu he add essees o he decisions esul ing om such p ocessing would emain ee no o accep hem. This in e p e a ion implies ha o oblige da a subjec s o accep a ully au oma ed legal decision, he e mus be a legal basis in na ional o EU law ha au ho izes he public adminis a ion body o issue such decisions. The A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y has in e p e ed A icle 22(1) as es ab- lishing a gene al p ohibi ion o decision-making based solely on au oma ed p ocessing. Acco ding o he Wo king Pa y’s guidelines, “[ ]his p ohibi ion applies whe he o no he da a subjec akes an ac ion ega ding he p ocessing o hei pe sonal da a” (A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y 2018). These guidelines we e exp essly endo sed by he Eu opean Da a P o ec ion Boa d (“EDPB”), he successo o he A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y (Eu opean Da a P o ec ion Boa d 2018). Though no legally binding, hese guidelines a e highly au ho i a i e as hey emana e om he body (A icle 29 Da a p o ec ion Wo king Pa y and i s successo , he EDPB) which comp ises all he da a p o ec ion au ho i ies in he EEA, i.e., he supe iso y au ho i y ha has powe o en o ce da a p o ec ion legisla ion. Following he publica ion o he guidelines, he p e ailing iew has been ha A icle 22(1) con ains a gene al p ohibi ion. Howe e , a ecen ly published a icle by Tosoni p esen s a ho ough conside a ion o he ‘ igh - s.-p ohibi ion’ issue and a gues pe suasi ely ha A icle 22(1) is bes ega ded as laying down a igh o be exe cised by da a subjec s, a he han as a gene al p ohibi ion (Tosoni 2021). I emains o be seen whe he Tosoni’s a icle changes he cu en iew and ips he balance in a ou o he in e p e a ion ha A icle 22(1) es ablishes a igh a he han a gene al p ohibi ion. Ne e heless, i appea s ha he No wegian d a e s o he a ious p oposed (and adop ed) amendmen s examined in his pape ha e been highly in luenced by he A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y’s guidelines and simply s a ed, o en e e ing o such guidelines, ha A icle 22(1) lays Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 6 o 23 down a gene al p ohibi ion and ha , in ligh o his, he e was a need o a speci ic legal basis in No wegian law o indi idual adminis a i e decisions o be ully au oma ed. E en i he ide u ns in a ou o in e p e ing A icle 22(1) as a igh and no a gene al p ohibi ion, he e a e s ill s ong a gumen s o be made in a ou o he legisla o ensu ing ha he e is a speci ic legal basis ha au ho izes ully au oma ed decision-making by adminis a i e agencies. A legal basis as speci ied in A icle 22(2)(b) s eng hens he ule o law by p o iding a clea ule ha lays down when such decisions can be aken by adminis a i e agencies and also wha measu es a e o be aken o sa egua d he da a subjec ’s igh s, eedoms and legi ima e in e es s. I also makes o mo e e ec i e public sec o au oma ion by es ic ing he indi idual’s igh o be able o challenge au oma ed adminis a i e decisions pu ely on he basis ha such decisions we e ully au oma ed. As o he na u e o he legal basis ha au ho izes ully au oma ed decision making pu suan o GDPR A icle 22(2)(b), he ex ual wo ding o his p o ision e e s o “Union o membe s a e law” ha p o ides sui able measu es. As Reci al 41 s a es, he equi emen in he GDPR o a legal basis o a legisla i e measu e does no necessa ily equi e a legisla i e ac adop ed by a pa liamen . Wha is essen ial is ha “such a legal basis o legisla i e measu e should be clea and p ecise, and i s applica ion should be o eseeable o pe sons subjec o i ”, c. . GDPR Reci al 41. I is hus clea ha bo h p ima y and seconda y legisla ion a e encompassed. Mo eo e , a clea and p ecise p onouncemen in he p epa a o y wo ks o a sec o -speci ic law o egula ion o he e ec ha a ce ain p ocessing ac i i y o ac i i ies a e ully au oma ed may also su ice as a legal basis pu suan o A icle 22(2)(b) (Scha um 2018). This is, o example, he case wi h sec ion 9-2 o he Tax Managemen Ac o 2016, which deals wi h ax calcula ion. The P epa a o y Wo ks o he Tax Managemen Bill (2015–2016) e e o “mass adminis a i e sys ems” whe e he calcula ion o ax and indi idual decisions is ully au oma ed, bu he Ac i sel does no ha e any p o ision which speci ically egula es he issue o ully o pa ially au oma ed decisions (No wegian Minis y o Finance 2018). A u he dis inc ion is in oduced in GDPR A icle 22(4) whe e a special ca ego y o pe sonal da a is p ocessed. Special ca ego y o pe sonal da a is da a e ealing acial o e hnic o igin, poli ical opinions, eligious o philosophical belie s, ade union membe ship, gene ic da a, biome ic da a p ocessed o he pu pose o uniquely iden i ying an indi idual, heal h da a o da a conce ning one’s sex li e o sexual o ien a ion, c. . GDPR A icle 9(1). Whe e he pe sonal da a p ocessed in espec o a ully au oma ed legal decision includes special ca ego ies o da a, he p ocessing by he public body o agency mus ei he be “necessa y o easons o subs an ial public in e es . on he basis o Union o Membe S a e law which shall be p opo iona e o he aim pu sued, espec he essence o he igh o da a p o ec ion and p o ide o sui able and speci ic measu es o sa egua d he undamen al igh s and he in e es s o he da a subjec ”, c. . GDPR A icle 9(2)(g), o based on he da a subjec ’s explici consen . 3.1.3. The Requi emen o Sui able Measu es o Au oma ed Indi idual Decision-Making Acco ding o GDPR A icle 22(2)(b), he legal basis ha au ho izes ully au oma ed decisions mus lay down “sui able measu es o sa egua d he da a subjec ’s igh s and eedoms and legi ima e in e es s”. Wha hese “sui able measu es” a e o be is no u he speci ied in his p o ision and EEA s a es hus ha e a b oad leeway in his ega d. Howe e , A icle 22(3) lis s h ee sui able measu es ha mus be p o ided as a minimum in cases whe e ully au oma ed decisions a e based ei he on he da a subjec ’s explici consen (c. . A icle 22(2)(c)) o whe e i is necessa y o en e ing in o o pe o mance o a con ac wi h he da a subjec (c. . A icle 22(2)(a)). Though on hei ace, he sui able measu es equi ed o a na ional legal basis pu suan o A icle 22(2)(b) do no need o include he sa egua ds speci ied in A icle 22(3), “[i]n many i no all con ex s, howe e , hese sa egua ds (o elemen s o hem) a e likely o igu e as measu es o he pu poses o A icle 22(2)(b)” (Byg a e 2020a) . The measu es ha mus be p o ided o da a subjec s pu suan o A icle 22(3) a e he ollowing: Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 7 o 23 1. he igh o ob ain human in e en ion on he pa o he con olle ; 2. he igh o exp ess his o he poin o iew; 3. he igh o con es he decision. As s a ed abo e, he lis o measu es in A icle 22(3) is no exhaus i e and GDPR Reci al 71 also men ions he da a subjec ’s igh o speci ic in o ma ion, and he igh “ o ob ain an explana ion o he decision eached a e such assessmen ”. Schola s di e on whe he a da a subjec has a igh o an ex pos explana ion o au oma ed decisions a ec ing hem (Edwa ds and Veale 2017;Edwa ds and Veale 2018;Kaminski 2019;Mendoza and Byg a e 2017;Selbs and Powles 2017;Wach e e al. 2017) and on he ex en o which such a igh is inhe en , i no in A icle 22, in he a ious o he p o isions o he GDPR (Maglie i 2019) . Byg a e holds ha “solid g ounds exis o iewing he igh as inhe en in he penumb a” o a ious o he igh s in he GDPR, such as he igh o con es a decision in A icle 22(3), in he o e a ching p inciple ha pe sonal da a mus be p ocessed “ ai ly and in a anspa en manne ” in A icle 5(1)(a), and in he da a subjec igh o ob ain “meaning ul in o ma ion abou he logic in ol ed, as well as he signi icance and he en isaged consequences o such p ocessing o he da a subjec ” in A icle 15(1)(h) (Byg a e 2020a). The A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y p o ides a lis o o he good p ac ice sugges ions o addi ional sa egua ds ha include: egula quali y assu ance checks o sys ems agains disc imina ion and un ai ea men , algo i hmic audi ion (in e nal and/o by independen hi d pa y audi ing), con ac ual assu ances o hi d pa y algo i hms, da a minimisa ion measu es o inco po a e clea e en ion pe iods, anonymiza ion o pseudonymiza ion echniques, ways o allow he da a subjec o exp ess his o he poin o iew and con es he decision and a mechanism o human in e en ion (A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y 2018). 3.2. Gene al Sa egua ds unde he Public Adminis a ion Ac Unde lying No wegian public adminis a i e laws a e he key p inciples o law ul- ness and con o mi y wi h s a u o y pu pose (i.e., he du y no o ac a bi a ily), p ope and us wo hy case p ocessing and he du y o objec i i y and impa iali y, he du y o p opo ionali y and he indi idual’s igh o be hea d, igh o e iew and igh o appeal adminis a i e decisions (G a e 2019). The p inciple o law ulness and non-a bi a iness is ensh ined in Sec ion 113 o he Cons i u ion o No way which s a es ha any in e en ion by public au ho i ies agains an indi idual mus ha e a basis in law. Many o he o he undamen al p inciples we e codi ied in he PAA. The equi emen o impa iali y is egu- la ed in PAA Sec ion 6 which lays down ules ha speci y when such o icials and anyone pe o ming se ices o wo king o an adminis a i e agency shall be disquali ied om p epa ing he basis o a decision and/o om making any decision in an adminis a i e case. Many o he o he undamen al adminis a i e law p inciples a e ensh ined in he PAA. Thus, adminis a i e agencies ha e a du y o p o ide gene al guidance o indi iduals seeking assis ance on ma e s wi hin he speci ic agency’s compe ence, c. . PAA Sec ion 11. An indi idual in espec o whom an adminis a i e decision is abou o be issued mus ecei e ad ance no ice o he decision ha is expec ed o be issued, unless such indi idual is al eady awa e o ha ac , c. . PAA Sec ion 16. This, coupled wi h he adminis a i e agency’s du y o ensu e ha he case be o e i is cla i ied as ho oughly as possible be o e any indi idual decision is made, enables he indi idual o pa icipa e in he case, p o ide any o he in o ma ion o e idence ele an o he case, and o o he wise be hea d be o e a inal adminis a i e decision is made in his o he espec , c. . PAA Sec ion 17. Fu he mo e, public sec o bodies and agencies mus gi e g ounds o hei indi idual decisions, c. . PAA Sec ion 24. The g ounds mus e e o (i) he ules on which he indi idual decision is based, (ii) he ac ual ci cums ances upon which he adminis a i e decision is based, and (iii) whe e he decision in ol es he use o adminis a i e disc e ion, he chie conside a ions ha we e decisi e o he exe cise o disc e iona y powe s. I guidelines o he exe cise o adminis a i e disc e ion exis , a e e ence o such guidelines would be deemed su icien , Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 8 o 23 c. . PAA Sec ion 25. Once an indi idual decision is made, i mus be no i ied o he pa y, oge he wi h in o ma ion on in e alia he igh o appeal, he ime limi o an appeal and he speci ic p ocedu e o be ollowed o an appeal. Thus, he combined e ec o he abo emen ioned p o isions enables he indi idual (i.e., he da a subjec ) “ o exp ess his o he poin o iew” and “ o con es he decision”, i.e., wo o he measu es speci ied in GDPR A icle 22(3). 3.3. Findings As men ioned ea lie , a sea ch o he s ing “au oma ise e a gjø else ” (in English: au oma ed decisions) was made in he Regje ingen.no public da abase du ing he i s week o Augus 2021. The sea ch iden i ied o y- h ee documen s con aining bo h wo ds. Some documen s made p oposals o amendmen s o mo e han one piece o legisla ion o egula ion. Each o he o y- h ee documen s was examined and wen y-se en di e en p oposals o amendmen o legisla ion (s a u e o egula ions) ha p o ided a speci ic legal basis o a public sec o body o agency o issue ully au oma ed decisions in espec o ce ain ypes o p ocessing and/o had an enabling p o ision ha pe mi ed such go e nmen body o agency o issue mo e de ailed egula ions on au oma ed decision- making, we e iden i ied. As s a ed ea lie , o de e mine whe he he p oposal o amendmen was passed, as well as wha he inal ex o he amendmen as app o ed by he S o ing was, a sea ch was made in Lo da a o all he wen y-se en p oposals o amendmen s o laws and egula- ions. F om his, i eme ged ha wen y-one o he p oposals o amendmen s ha e al eady been passed, whe eas six p oposals o s a u o y amendmen s a e s ill pending adop ion. Fou een o he wen y-one amendmen s ha we e passed by he S o ing con ained a subs an i e legal basis ha pe mi s he use o ully au oma ed legal decisions in espec o ce ain speci ic ypes o p ocessing. These a e se ou in Table 1below, wi h he No wegian sho name o he espec i e legisla ion included in b acke s. Table 1also indica es (i) he ele an sec ion numbe and he ype o p ocessing ac i i y ha he legal basis is in espec o , (ii) any limi a ions, included in he wo ding o he legal p o ision, ha ci cumsc ibe o se equi emen s on he ype o decision ha can be ully au oma ed, e.g., ega ding he exe cise o disc e ion, he need o p ope and us wo hy case p ocessing, o he equi emen ha he p ocessing mus be compa ible wi h he igh o p o ec ion o pe sonal da a, and (iii) any o he measu es o sa egua ds ha a e exp essly men ioned in he wo ding o he amendmen such as he indi idual’s igh o demand ha a human being e iews he decision, he equi emen o equen manual checks, he need o quali y assu ance, and any speci ica ion as o when he legal p o ision(s) may be gi en e ec . Table 1. Subs an i e amendmen s o p ima y and seconda y legisla ion passed by pa liamen . Name o S a u e/Regula ions Sec ion and Con ex o he Legal Basis Limi a ions Measu es 1A—Uni e si ies and Uni e si y Colleges Ac (uni e si e s-og høyskolelo en) s. 4-15(4): case p ocessing o adminis a i e sys ems o educa ional ins i u ions - Righ o human e iew 1B—Uni e si ies and Uni e si y Colleges Ac (uni e si e s- og høyskolelo en) s. 3-4: app o al o o eign highe educa ion - Righ o human e iew 2—P ima y, lowe and uppe seconda y schools Ac (opplæ ingslo a) s. 3-4a: app o al o o eign educa ion/ aining; powe o issue egula ions - Righ o human e iew 3—Highe Voca ional Educa ion Ac ( agskolelo en) s. 7: app o al o ele an o eign educa ion - Righ o human e iew Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 15 o 23 be comple ely ee o un e he ed because he unde lying adminis a i e law p inciples o sa egua d he ule o law, emain applicable. The disc e ion alluded o in he wo ds “disc e iona y e ms” in he amendmen o he nine s a u es abo emen ioned and iden i ied in Table 1is no he exe cise o disc e- iona y powe s by an adminis a i e agency. The p epa a o y wo ks s a e ha he ac ha a law o egula ion equi es a case-by-case basis assessmen whe he a condi ion o equi emen in legal p o ision is ul illed o no , does no necessa ily en ail he exe cise o adminis a i e disc e ion (No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019). Fo example, he equi emen in he Social Secu i y Ac o a case-by-case analysis o ensu e ha sickness bene i is paid only i he condi ions o ob ain such bene i ha e been ul illed (i.e., he e is a medical condi ion/illness) does no equi e any disc e iona y e alua ion by he public sec o employee handling he case. I he claim o sickness bene i is ac- companied by a medical ce i ica e wi h a alid diagnosis, he Depa men o Labou and Wel a e will conside he condi ion ul illed. The same applies in cases conce ning claims o disabili y pensions pu suan o he Public Se ice Pension Fund Ac . In each o such cases, he e alua ion o he equi emen which equi es a case-by-case e alua ion (Is he applican sick/disabled?) may be ope a ionalized by means o au oma ion (No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019). Thus, whe e all he po en ial ou comes o condi ions o a legal equi emen can be mapped ou be o ehand, he legal ule may be ope a ionalized and hence, au oma ed. This is usually he case whe e a legal ule may be ope a ionalized by means o a decision ee. A decision ee is a hie a chically s uc u ed, p edic i e classi ica ion model ha maps obse a ions abou a pa icula uni o analysis o a i e a conclusions abou i s cha ac e (Russell and No ig 2020). Acco ding o he abo emen ioned p epa a o y wo ks o he wel a e and pension legisla ion, i he ou come o he disc e iona y assessmen o he s a u o y/ egula o y condi ion would be indubi able i he assessmen was made by a human being, he decision may be ully au oma ed (No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019). Whe e open-ended o disc e iona y e ms such as “ easonably”, “adequa ely”, “jus i- iably”, “sui ably” o “likely”, a e used in legisla ion o gi e he adminis a i e agency a ce ain leeway when assessing each indi idual case, au oma ion becomes e y di icul i no impossible (Scha um 2018). I , in each case-by-case assessmen , i is possible o keep adducing new a gumen s, ac o s o elemen s, ull au oma ion o he legal p o ision is no possible. Whe e, howe e , he assessmen o , o example, wha is “ easonable” o “jus i i- able” is limi ed o a e y speci ic a ea o con ex in such a way ha i is possible o map ou all he possible c i e ia ha gi e an indica ion o wha “ easonable” o “jus i iable” means, au oma ion o such assessmen may be possible (Scha um e al. 2017;Scha um 2018). Though ull au oma ion may be possible by emo ing disc e ion and ins ead in oducing a limi ed numbe o mo e i m condi ions, he “law ul applica ion o an Ac o egula ion may imply a du y o exe cise disc e ion” (Scha um 2020). The ques ion he e is whe he i is a all law ul o eplace he disc e iona y assessmen wi h a ini e lis o i m condi ions. A po en ial way o wa d would be o simply ca y ou disc e ion ou side he au oma ed sys em and a ange o inpu s exp essing esul s o disc e iona y assessmen s ca ied ou by he case o ice ( o example: easonable/adequa e/jus i iable/ sui able/likely? Y/N) (Scha um 2020). Such sys ems would no be ully au oma ed and hus all ou side he scope o GDPR A icle 22. Fu he mo e, he pace o p ocessing would be slowed down and e iciency somewha educed. Decisional sys ems ha encode and apply s a ic legisla i e equi emen s, employing decision ees, p eclude by hei e y na u e he use o machine lea ning echniques (Byg a e 2020b) . Machine lea ning echniques a e o en classi ied in o h ee, depending on whe he hey employ supe ised lea ning, ein o cemen lea ning o unsupe ised lea ning. Bo h supe ised lea ning and ein o cemen lea ning in ol e he aining o a sys em by way o examples. In supe ised lea ning, he machine lea ns o ecognize/classi y new cases in a manne ha is pa e ned on examples o co ec answe s ed in o i . In ein o cemen lea ning, he sys em lea ns om he ou comes o i s own ac ions h ough Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 16 o 23 ewa ds (e.g., poin s awa ded) o penal ies (e.g., poin s deduc ed) ha a e linked o he ou comes o such ac ions. In unsupe ised lea ning, he sys em is gi en da a and lea ns wi hou ecei ing ex e nal ins uc ions, ei he in ad ance o as eedback (Sa o and Lagioia 2020). One challenge wi h lea ning algo i hms ha p edic ou comes on he basis o p e ious cases is ha he algo i hmic model ha de elops will e lec he a i udes o he decision-make s whose decisions a e in he aining se , i.e., bo h hei i ues and biases (Sa o and Lagioia 2020). Unless compensa ing ou ines a e in oduced, machine lea ning will hus only ein o ce p e ious p ac ice, leading o he de elopmen o echo chambe s (Scha um 2020). As Byg a e (2020b) no es, machine lea ning “needs disc e iona y o logical ‘space’ in which o de elop and will hus be shu ou o decisional sys ems whe e he e is no such acili y.” The u u e use o machine lea ning in public adminis a i e sys ems was only supe - icially ouched upon by he Law Commission on he Public Adminis a ion Ac (2019). The Law Commission s a ed ha machine lea ning p o ides new possibili ies bu also aises ques ions abou anspa ency and con ol/ e i ica ion. I e e ed wi h app o al o a Swedish law commission epo (Swedish Law Commission on he Bene i C ime Ac 2018) ha p oposed ha adminis a i e agencies ha conside using AI wi h machine lea ning algo i hms mus in ad ance d aw up p ocedu es whe eby hi d pa ies may pe o m audi s, supe ision, ce i ica ion o o he ypes o con ol o any algo i hms ha will be used. The No wegian Law Commission’s commen s we e b oad-based and did no ouch upon whe he , o he ex en o which, AI o machine lea ning ough o be pe mi ed when adminis a i e agencies issue indi idual decisions. Howe e , he p epa a o y wo ks o all he nine amendmen s (No wegian Minis y o Educa ion 2019,2021;No wegian Minis y o Jus ice and Public Secu i y 2019;No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019) did posi ha in he u u e, i may become possible o ully au oma e mo e complex assessmen s by using AI and machine lea ning. I ha we e o happen, acco ding o he p epa a o y wo ks, he e would be need o mo e speci ic and conc e e egula ion as well as a comp ehensi e e iew and impac assessmen . I does, howe e , seem somewha i onic ha , in i s e o s o ci cumsc ibe wha echnology ough o be used in ully au o- ma ed decisions, he legisla o op ed o open-ended ph ases such as “canno be based on disc e iona y s a u o y e ms” and “indubi able decision” a he han u ilizing plain language which is mo e au oma ion- iendly. Though i does no appea ha No wegian adminis a i e agencies, as o Oc obe 2021, a e using AI and machine lea ning in legal decision-making sys ems ha a e ully au oma ed, a leas in he sense o GDPR a icle 22, he e is g owing in e es in he use o AI and machine lea ning in some pa s o s ages o case p ocessing. The Labou and Wel a e Agency (known as “NAV” in No way) has ini ia ed a p ojec o explo e he use o AI o p edic how long pe sons ha a e on sick lea e a e likely o be on such lea e (NAV Sandbox P ojec 2021). The No wegian S a e Educa ional Loan Fund has also used machine lea ning o selec candida es o so-called “ esiden ial e i ica ion”, ha is o e i y he esiden ial add ess o s uden s egis e ed as li ing away om home by checking hei add ess agains ha o hei pa en s (Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode nisa ion 2019). The use o AI and machine lea ning is hus no as emo e as he Law Commission on he Public Adminis a ion Ac may ha e hough . 4.2.2. The P ocessing Mus Be Compa ible wi h he Righ o P o ec ion o Pe sonal Da a Se en amendmen s iden i ied in Table 1s a e ha he p ocessing mus be compa ible wi h he igh o p o ec ion o pe sonal da a. Al hough he p epa a o y wo ks o he amendmen s do no discuss his u he , “ he p o ec ion o pe sonal in eg i y” is ecognized in A icle 102 o he Cons i u ion o No way as a undamen al human igh , oge he wi h he igh o p i a e and amily li e. The p o ec ion o pe sonal da a is also ensh ined in he EU Cha e o Fundamen al Righ s o he EU (“EU Cha e ”). Acco ding o Sec ion 8 o he EU Cha e , pe sonal da a mus be p ocessed ai ly o speci ied pu poses and pu suan o a legi ima e basis laid down by law. I also s a es ha “[e] e yone has he Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 17 o 23 igh o access o da a which has been collec ed conce ning him o he and he igh o ha e i ec i ied.” These a e key da a subjec igh s ha a e elabo a ed u he in he GDPR. Indi iduals should hus ha e he possibili y o ind ou wha pe sonal da a is p ocessed by ully au oma ed legal decision-making ools and o demand ec i ica ion o e oneous da a. The p epa a o y wo ks o he amendmen o he NAV Ac , Public Se ice Pension Fund Ac , Employed Seamen’s Pension Scheme Ac , Fishe men’s Pension Insu ance Ac , Nu ses’ Pension Scheme Ac , and Pension Scheme o Pe sons Accompanying Fo eign Se ice Employees Ac s a e ha whe e he da a ha is ed in o he algo i hm con ains e o s, he e mus be a possibili y o manually co ec he decision (No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019). Al hough he EU Cha e is no di ec ly binding on No way as i is no a membe s a e o he EU, he GDPR e e s o he impo ance o he EU Cha e in se e al o i s Reci als and hus he EU Cha e is an impo an sou ce o in e p e he GDPR, which is law in No way, c. . Pe sonal Da a Ac Sec ion 1. Mo eo e , he igh o da a p o ec ion, as Hijmans (2020) poin s ou , is o en a p e- equisi e o he e ec i e exe cise o o he undamen al igh s such as he eedom o exp ession. To his one may add he igh o eedom om disc imina ion, c. . A icle 98 o he Cons i u ion. The in e play o he igh o p o ec ion o pe sonal da a wi h he o he undamen al igh s is highligh ed in A icle 1(2) o he GDPR which enuncia es ha a key objec i e o he egula ion is o p o ec “ undamen al igh s and eedoms o na u al pe sons and in pa icula he igh o he p o ec ion o pe sonal da a”, c. . GDPR A icle 1(2). 4.2.3. The No ion o a Decision Which Is “Only o a Li le Deg ee In asi e” The wo sec o -speci ic p oposals o amendmen iden i ied in Table 3, ha is, he p oposed amendmen o he Pa ien Medical Reco ds Ac and hose o he Na ional Insu - ance Ac we e published o public consul a ion in July 2021 wi h a deadline o 15 Oc obe 2021 o he submission o esponses. Bo h amendmen s we e published in one and he same p epa a o y wo ks documen (No wegian Minis y o Heal h and Ca e Se ices 2021) . Bo h p oposals s a e ha ully au oma ed legal decisions may be made when he decision has a low impac on he indi idual. Mo e p ecisely, he No wegian e m used is ”li e inng ipende” which can be eely ansla ed as “sligh ly in asi e/in usi e” o “ o a li le deg ee in asi e/in usi e”. This e m is u he discussed in he p epa a o y wo ks as e e ing o indi idual decisions ha ha e limi ed consequences o he indi idual such as, o example, decisions ega ding small amoun s (No wegian Minis y o Heal h and Ca e Se ices 2021). Wha is sligh ly in asi e mus be de e mined on a case-by-case basis and mus conside he ex en o pe sonal da a p ocessed, he sensi i i y o he da a and whe he he e is eason o belie e ha he pe sonal da a is co ec . Fu he mo e, acco ding o he p epa a o y wo ks, he condi ions o he decision mus also be clea and objec i e o such an ex en ha i is easy o de e mine whe he such condi ions a e ul illed o no . Such a decision, acco ding o he p epa a o y wo ks, will ypically no con ain elemen s whe e he e is need o assessmen o he exe cise o judgmen /disc e ion. Examples o decisions ha a e only sligh ly in asi e would be decisions conce ning he se lemen o paymen o pa ien jou neys (e.g., o and om a hospi al), he issue o a Eu opean Heal h Insu ance Ca d, and he au oma ic issue o a ca d o exemp an indi idual om u he paymen o heal h se ices once a pa icula h eshold has been eached. Al hough hese examples can be conside ed as ha ing a low impac on he indi idual, he ph ase “sligh ly in asi e/in usi e” when applied o o he ypes o p ocessing may gi e ise o di icul ies o in e p e a ion. Whe e should he line be d awn be ween “sligh ly” in asi e/in usi e decisions and hose which a e in asi e o in usi e? Tha he abili y o d aw a clea line is mo e han an academic one is e idenced by he ac ha he p epa a o y wo ks s a e ha decisions ha a e “mo e complica ed and in asi e/in usi e” may be pe mi ed i egula ions ha e been issued ha allow such ypes o decisions. These ypes o decisions, as he p epa a o y wo ks emphasize (No wegian Minis y o Heal h and Ca e Se ices 2021), equi e mo e p ecise Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 18 o 23 ules and mo e “cus omized” due p ocess gua an ees such as, o example, he equi emen o ca y ou andom sampling and o he measu es o ensu e quali y imp o emen . O he examples o wha may be egula ed in seconda y legisla ion in o de o limi he isk o e o , and ha a e men ioned in he p epa a o y wo ks, a e he need o equen audi s o he algo i hms used, as well as egula e iew o he co ec ness and ele ance o he au oma ed decisions. The e m “sligh ly in asi e/in usi e” appea s o be inspi ed by wo ding used by he Law Commission on he Public Adminis a ion in i s p oposal o a new Public Admin- is a ion Ac . The Law Commission was spli in i s iews on he use o ully au oma ed legal decisions by adminis a i e agencies. The majo i y iew p oposed a new sec ion 11 ha would empowe adminis a i e agencies o make ully au oma ed legal decisions whe e he decision is only sligh ly in asi e/in usi e. In he case o in usi e/in asi e decisions, he majo i y iew held, speci ic egula ions ha p o ide a legal basis o such in usi e/in asi e decisions mus be issued. The mino i y iew wen e en u he and, in wha appea s o be a ci cula a gumen , held i su icien o sec ion 11 o s a e ha adminis a i e agencies may issue ully au oma ed legal decisions as long as he p ocessing is necessa y o exe cise o icial au ho i y o a legal obliga ion. The use o ague and open-ended e ms, such as “sligh ly in asi e/in usi e deci- sions” and “mo e in asi e/in usi e decisions” in legisla ion, is un o una e. I also ails o mee he equi emen in GDPR Reci al 41 ha a legal basis (as equi ed in GDPR A icle 22(2)(b)) mus be “clea and p ecise and i s applica ion should be o eseeable by pe sons subjec o i ”. I onically, ins ead o a clea legal ule ha is i sel sui ed o au oma ion and ope a ionaliza ion, he p oposed amendmen s p o ide a ule ha is a he open-ended and li le sui ed o au oma ion. 4.3. Measu es 4.3.1. The Righ o Ob ain Human Re iew As s a ed ea lie in his pape , hi een o he amended laws and egula ions (Table 1) explici ly s a e ha a pa y in espec o whom a decision has been made has a igh o ob ain human e iew o he ully au oma ed decision. Besides being e e ed o in GDPR Reci al 71, he igh o human in e en ion is one o he minimum igh s ha mus be g an ed o da a subjec s who ei he explici ly consen o a ully au oma ed legal decision o in espec o whom such a decision is necessa y o con ac o ma ion o pe o mance pu poses, c. . GDPR A icle 22(3). Though a igh o human e iew is absen om GDPR A icle 22(2)(b), as s a ed in Sec ion 3.2 o his pape , he No wegian PAA p o ides a igh o appeal om indi idual adminis a i e decisions, c. . Sec ion 28. Acco ding o he p epa a o y wo ks, by codi ying he igh o human e iew in each o hese sec o - speci ic laws and egula ions, he legisla o is ensu ing ha he igh o human in e en ion will also apply o cases whe e he e is no au oma ic igh o appeal unde he PAA ( o example, in espec o in e locu o y/p o isional decisions). Ano he posi i e e ec o his amendmen is ha i cla i ies ha he e iew mus be made by a human being. Though his may oday seem ob ious— unning he same ac s h ough he same, ule-based algo i hm, will gi e he same esul and would hus be u ile—we e he public sec o o mo e om he cu en p ac ice o using decision ee-based algo i hms o he uncha e ed e i o y o machine lea ning echniques, one canno comple ely ule ou ha a di e en ou come may ollow om unning he same ac s in a di e en machine lea ning algo i hm used in he appella e s age. The amendmen o he In eg a ion Regula ions pe mi s he ull au oma ion o es s in he No wegian language and in No wegian social s udies whe e he e is only one possible co ec answe o each ques ion in such es s, o example, mul iple-choice es s. When hese ypes o es s a e held, an appeal is only be pe mi ed on o mal e o s, c. . Sec ion 64, c. . Sec ion 42 o he In eg a ion Regula ions. Unlike he abo emen ioned ou een laws and egula ions, he wo p oposed amend- men s which a e s ill o be deba ed in he S o ing, i.e., he p oposed amendmen o he Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 19 o 23 Pa ien Medical Reco ds Ac and o he Na ional Insu ance Ac , do no con ain speci ic wo ding ha cla i ies ha an indi idual has a igh o human e iew. Howe e , ha such a igh exis s is men ioned in he p epa a o y wo ks o he p oposed amendmen s (No wegian Minis y o Heal h and Ca e Se ices 2021). 4.3.2. Quali y Assu ance and Audi s The sys em ha p ocesses ully au oma ed es s pu suan o he In eg a ion Regula- ions, discussed in Sec ion 4.3.1 abo e, mus be subjec o sa is ac o y quali y assu ance o ensu e he co ec esul o he p ocessing. On simila lines, he amendmen o he Regula ions on Ci izenship and he Regula ions on Fo eigne s’ Access o No way s a es ha he use o ully au oma ed legal decisions mus be subjec o equen manual checks. Al hough he abo e wo egula ions a e he only ones which speci ically men ion he need o quali y assu ance and manual checks as a speci ic measu e, mos o he p epa a o y wo ks o he o he amended legisla ion also e e o he need o equen checks and audi s as an addi ional measu e (No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s 2019). 4.3.3. Time: Applicabili y Only in Ex ao dina y Si ua ions The amendmen o he Na ional Insu ance Ac (see Table 2) is an eme gency p o ision ha was passed in Ap il 2020, as a esul o he ou b eak o he COVID-19 pandemic and allows he issue o ully au oma ed legal decisions upon ou b eak o isk o ou b eak o in ec ious disease ha endange public heal h o sa e y. The amendmen is quali ied and applies when ei he o wo al e na i e ac o s exis : a pe iod o eme gency and/o a la ge case load. As o he o me , he amendmen only applies du ing an ou b eak o when he isk o ou b eak is p esen . As o he la e quali ica ion, he amendmen also applies when he Labou and Wel a e Agency has an unusually high case load o long p ocessing pe iods because o he ou b eak o isk o ou b eak. 4.3.4. Da a P o ec ion P inciples The p oposed amendmen o he Pa ien Medical Reco ds Ac (Table 3) s a es ha heal h da a may be p ocessed wi hou he pa ien ’s consen . Howe e , he amendmen con inues, he deg ee o pe sonal iden i ica ion mus no be g ea e han is necessa y o he pu pose in ques ion, and in o ma ion abou diagnosis o illness can only be p ocessed when i is necessa y o achie e he pu pose o he p ocessing o in o ma ion. These wo quali ica ions a e a mani es a ion o he da a minimisa ion p inciple (c. . GDPR A icle 5(1)(b)) and he pu pose limi a ion p inciple (c. . GDPR A icle 5(1)(c)) and likely mean as a eminde o en i ies ha p o ide heal h ca e o ake in o accoun hese key da a p o ec ion p inciples. 4.4. Righ o an Explana ion o he Decision Acco ding o GDPR Reci al 71, a da a subjec should ha e a igh o ob ain an ex- plana ion o a decision ha is based solely on au oma ed p ocessing. The e has been much discussion in da a p o ec ion legal li e a u e on he ex en o which his is a legally en o ceable igh since i is only ound in a eci al and hus does no ha e he di ec o ce o law as an a icle does. This discussion becomes a he edundan in he case o indi idual decisions because, as is he case in o he democ a ic ju isdic ions, public sec o bodies and agencies in No way a e obliged by public adminis a i e law o p o ide g ounds o hei indi idual decisions. The con en s o he g ounds a e speci ied in PAA Sec ion 25 and mus include: (i) a e e ence o he ules on which he indi idual decision is based, (ii) he ac ual ci cums ances upon which he adminis a i e decision is based, and (iii) whe e he decision in ol es he use o adminis a i e disc e ion, he chie conside a ions ha we e decisi e o he exe cise o disc e iona y powe s. Coupled wi h he equi emen s o PAA Sec ion 25 is he igh o he da a subjec o ob ain access o pe sonal da a conce ning him o he ha is p ocessed by he da a con olle Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 20 o 23 and, whe e he e is ully au oma ed decision-making, he igh o “meaning ul in o ma ion abou he logic in ol ed, as well as he signi icance and he en isaged consequences o such p ocessing o he da a subjec ”, c. . GDPR A icle 15(1)(h). As Scha um (2020) explains: “Fully au oma ed decisions mus logically be based on wo main p emises: i s , da a ep esen ing e e y ele an ac o he case mus exis in machine- eadable o m and be digi ally accessible in he app op ia e echnical o ma ; second, i mus be possible o p ocess all da a o he case by means o compu e p og ams which con ain co ec and comple e ep esen a ion o all ele an applicable legal ules.” Opaque sys ems ha de y human in e p e abili y and ha do no p o ide an explana ion o how a decision was eached, also known as “black boxes”, would un coun e o he igh o ob ain he g ounds o an indi idual decision. The Law Commission o he A chi es Ac p oposed a du y o documen au oma ed applica ion o he law ( he Law Commission’s p oposed Sec ion 10) and a du y o documen decisions ( he Law Commission’s p oposed Sec ion 11). The o me was a du y o documen , in e alia, he da a ypes used, he sou ces used o hese da a ypes and he p ocessing ules de i ed om he legal ules ha a e de e mina i e o he decision. The la e was a du y o documen , in e alia, he ex en and manne in which a decision is based on au oma ed applica ion o he law, he s a u es, egula ions and ins uc ions/o de s ha we e de e mina i e o he decision and he ac ual ci cums ances ha a ec ed he ou come. The p oposed wo ding was no aken o wa d by he d a e s o he bill p oposing a new A chi es Ac ha was published o consul a ion in Oc obe 2021. The d a e s held ha such equi emen s a e mo e sui ed o inclusion in a new Public Adminis a ion Ac han in a law o egula e a chi es. Un o una ely, as has been shown ea lie in Sec ion 4.2.3 o his pape , he ex p oposed by he Law Commission on he Public Adminis a ion Ac lacks a simila assessmen on his issue as ha made by he Law Commission on he A chi es Ac . I is hoped ha any new Public Adminis a ion Ac will include a du y o documen au oma ed applica ion o he law and a du y o documen decisions on lines simila o hose p oposed by he Law Commission on he A chi es Ac . Ano he po en ial sou ce o inspi a ion o he d a e s o he new Public Adminis- a ion Ac would be A icle R311-3-1-2 o he F ench Code o Adminis a i e P ocedu e, which has pa allels wi h he Law Commission on he A chi es Ac ’s now-de unc p opos- als. Acco ding o A icle R311-3-1-2, whe e an indi idual decision is based on algo i hmic p ocessing, he adminis a i e agency mus p o ide he pa y o whom such decision is di ec ed, wi h he ollowing in o ma ion: (i) he deg ee and mode o con ibu ion o he algo i hmic p ocessing o he decision-making; (ii) he da a p ocessed and hei sou ce; (iii) he pa ame e s o he p ocessing and, whe e app op ia e, hei weigh ing, applied o he si ua ion o he pe son conce ned; and (i ) he ope a ions ca ied ou by he p ocessing. An ad an age o he wo ding in bo h A icle R311-3-1-2 and he ex p oposed by he Law Commission on he A chi es Ac is ha he in o ma ion/documen a ion du y would apply no jus when decisions a e ully au oma ed bu also whe e au oma ion is pa ial and hus he sphe e o applica ion would be wide han ha o GDPR A icle 22. 5. Conclusions The ac i i y in he las i e yea s has shown ha he equi emen s o GDPR A icle 22 a e being add essed on a piecemeal basis in No way. Though some limi a ions ega ding he ype o legal ules ha may be ully au oma ed and some o he sui able measu es iden i ied in he legisla ion and in hei espec i e p epa a o y wo ks a e simila , he e a e also some ma ked di e ences be ween hem. This piecemeal app oach on i s own may lead o agmen a ion and complexi y. A simple , clea e and mo e o eseeable pa h o wa d would be one simila o he app oach aken in he F ench Code o Adminis a i e P ocedu e is-à- is he use o algo i hms in indi idual decisions o o ha p oposed by he Law Commission on he A chi es Ac wi h ega d o cases whe e he e is au oma ed applica ion o he law. I is hoped ha he new Public Adminis a ion Ac will add ess hese issues and ake a mo e p oac i e and comp ehensi e app oach ha lays down equi emen s Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 21 o 23 and measu es ha mus be applied ac oss he boa d, i.e., by all adminis a i e agencies. This could hen be supplemen ed by clea e and simple amendmen s o he espec i e sec o -speci ic s a u es o egula ions o p o ide a legal basis ha acili a es ully au oma ed decision-making in hose cases whe e he legisla o deems his necessa y. This is essen ial i digi alisa ion o he public sec o is o emain uly anspa en , inclusi e and us wo hy. Funding: This esea ch ecei ed no ex e nal unding. Ins i u ional Re iew Boa d S a emen : No applicable. In o med Consen S a emen : No applicable. Acknowledgmen s: The au ho is g a e ul o he esea ch g oup in public adminis a ion and go e nance a he Oslo Business School a Oslo Me opoli an Uni e si y o incisi e commen s o an ea lie d a o his pape . Con lic s o In e es : The au ho decla es no con lic o in e es . Re e ences A icle 29 Da a P o ec ion Wo king Pa y. 2018. Guidelines on Au oma ed Indi idual Decision-Making and P o iling o he Pu poses o Regula ion 2016/679. WP251 e . 01. Adop ed 3 Oc obe 2017, Las Re ised and Adop ed on 6 Feb ua y 2018. A ailable online: h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/news oom/a icle29/i ems/612053 (accessed on 9 Oc obe 2021). Byg a e, Lee A. 2020a. A icle 22. In The EU Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion (GDPR)—A Commen a y. Edi ed by Ch is ophe Kune , Lee A. Byg a e and Ch is ophe Docksey. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, pp. 522–42. Byg a e, Lee A. 2020b. Machine Lea ning, Cogni i e So e eign y and Da a P o ec ion Righ s wi h Respec o Au oma ed Decisions, Ve sion 2.0. In The Camb idge Handbook o In o ma ion Technology, Li e Sciences and Human Righ s (Fo hcoming). Edi ed by Ma cello I., O es e P., Lau a L., Elisa S. and Robe o A. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Also a ailable as Uni e si y o Oslo Facul y o Law Resea ch Pape No. 2020–35. A ailable online: h ps://ss n.com/abs ac =3721118 (accessed on 22 Oc obe 2021). Council o Eu ope. 2018. The Adminis a ion and You: P inciples o Adminis a i e Law Conce ning Rela ions be ween Indi iduals and Public Au ho i ies. A ailable online: h ps:// m.coe.in / he-adminis a ion-and-you/16808eb47e (accessed on 10 Augus 2021). Eckho , To s ein, and Ei ind Smi h. 2018. Fo al nings e , 11 h ed. Oslo: Uni e si e s o lage . Edwa ds, Lilian, and Michael Veale. 2017. Ensla ing he Algo i hm: F om a “Righ o an Explana ion” o a “Righ o Be e Decisions”? IEEE Secu i y & P i acy 16: 46–54. Edwa ds, Lilian, and Michael Veale. 2018. Sla e o he Algo i hm? Why a ‘Righ o an explana ion’ is p obably no he emedy you a e looking o ’. Duke Law & Technology Re iew 18: 18–84. Eng, S ein. 2007. Re s iloso i. Oslo: Uni e si e s o lage . Eu opean Da a P o ec ion Boa d. 2018. Endo semen 1/2018. A ailable online: h ps://edpb.eu opa.eu/si es/de aul / iles/ iles/news/ endo semen _o _wp29_documen s_en_0.pd (accessed on 8 Oc obe 2021). F ihagen, A id, and Ø nul Rasmussen. 2010. F ihagens o al nings e : Bind 1: Innledning il o al nings e en, dokumen o en lighe , in o masjonsbehandling, inhabili e , saksbehandling, klage og omgjø ing, 2nd ed. Be gen: Fagbok o lage . G a e , Hans Pe e . 2019. Alminnelig o al nings e , 5 h ed. Oslo: Uni e si e s o lage . Hijmans, Hielke. 2020. A icle 1. In The EU Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion (GDPR)—A Commen a y. Edi ed by Ch is ophe Kune , Lee A. Byg a e and Ch is ophe Docksey. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, pp. 48–59. Hildonen, Beni a Ha o n, and Si i Guls uen. 2012. Ka legging a au oma ise e a gjø else Ii o en lig o al ning. A epo commission by he No wegian Da a P o ec ion Au ho i y. A ailable online: h ps://www.uio.no/s udie /emne /jus/a in/FINF4001/h12/ unde isningsma e iale/au oma ise _ o al ning.pd (accessed on 15 Augus 2021). Kaminski, Ma go E. 2019. The Righ To Explana ion, Explained. Be keley Technology Law Jou nal 34: 189–218. [C ossRe ] Law Commission on he Public Adminis a ion Ac . 2019. NOU 2019:5 Ny o al ningslo . (English: A New Public Adminis a ion Ac ). A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e /nou-2019-5/id2632006/ (accessed on 16 Oc obe 2021). Maglie i, Gianclaudio. 2019. Au oma ed decision-making in he EU Membe S a es: The igh o explana ion and o he “sui able sa egua ds” in he na ional legisla ion. Compu e Law & Secu i y Re iew 35: 105327. Mendoza, Isak, and Lee A. Byg a e. 2017. The Righ No o Be Subjec o Au oma ed Decisions Based on P o iling. In EU In e ne Law: Regula ion and En o cemen . Edi ed by Ta iania-Eleni Synodinou, Philippe Jougleux, Ch is iana Ma kou and Thalia P as i ou. Cham: Sp inge , pp. 77–98. Moen, Ola Haugen. 2019. Fo al ningsskjønn og doms olskon oll [Adminis a i e Disc e ion and Judicial Re iew]. Oslo: Gyldendal. Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 22 o 23 NAV—No wegian Labou and Wel a e Agency’s Sandbox P ojec . 2021. P osjek plan: P ediksjon a syke a æ o me e ek- i opp ølging [English: P ojec Plan: P edic ion o Sick Lea e o Mo e E ec i e Follow-Up]. A ailable online: h ps: //www.da a ilsyne .no/con en asse s/ea0683a e9d04 1a9e87be9747380c9/p osjek plan- o -na ---sladde .pd (accessed on 24 Oc obe 2021). No wegian Minis y o Educa ion. 2019. Hø ingsno a —Fo slag il end inge i s a sbo ge lo en og s a sbo ge o sk i en— Behandling a pe sonopplysninge og au oma ise e a gjø else [English: Consul a ion Pape : Amendmen s o he Regu- la ions on Ci izenship—P ocessing o Pe sonal Da a, Use o Au oma ed Decisions, e c.]. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/con en asse s/ec5 3 7d0e804ebd9aae ceac4342b02/ho ingsno a - o slag- il-end inge -i-s a sbo ge lo en-og- s a sbo ge o sk i en-behandling-a -pe sonopplysninge -og-au oma ise e-a gjo else .pd (accessed on 10 Augus 2021). No wegian Minis y o Educa ion. 2021. P op. 111 L (2020–2021) P oposisjon il S o inge End inge i uni e si e s- og høyskolelo en, u danningss ø elo en, agskolelo en og y kesk ali ikasjonslo en m . [English: Bill 111 L (2020–2021) P oposal o amend he Uni e si ies and Uni e si y Colleges Ac , Educa ional Financial Suppo Ac , Highe Voca ional Educa ion Ac and Voca ional Quali ica ions Ac .] Documen 03/2021. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e /p op.-111-l-20202021 /id2840742/ (accessed on 10 Augus 2021). No wegian Minis y o Finance. 2018. Hø ingsno a — o slag il end inge Ii eglene om Ska e a ens in o masjonsbehandling [English: Consul a ion pape —Amendmen s o he ules ega ding he p ocessing o in o ma ion by he No wegian Tax Adminis a ion]. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e /hoy ing--- o slag-om-end inga -i- eglane- om-in o masjonshandsaminga-i-ska ee a en/id2594901/ (accessed on 15 Oc obe 2021). No wegian Minis y o Finance. 2021. P op. 237L (2020–2021) P oposisjon il S o inge —Lo om inn- og u ø sel a a e ( a e- ø selslo en) og lo om olla gi ( olla gi slo en) [Bill 237L (2020–2021) P oposal o a New Ca iage o Goods Ac and New Cus oms Ac ]. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e /p op.-237-l-20202021/id2871469/ (accessed on 15 Oc obe 2021). No wegian Minis y o Fo eign A ai s. 2019. Whi e Pape : Digi al T ans o masjon og u iklingspoli ikken (Meld.S .11 (2019–2020). [English: Digi al T ans o ma ion and De elopmen Policy.]. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e / meld.-s .-11-20192020/id2682394/?ch=1 (accessed on 1 Augus 2021). No wegian Minis y o Go e nmen Adminis a ion, Re o m and Chu ch A ai s. 2012–2013. Meld.S .23 (2012–2013). Repo o he S o ing (Whi e Pape ) Digi al Agenda o No way: ICT o G ow h and Value C ea ion. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/ en/dokumen e /meld.-s .-23-2012-2013/id718084/ (accessed on 17 Oc obe 2021). No wegian Minis y o Heal h and Ca e Se ices. 2021. Hø ingsno a om end inge i pasien jou nallo en m .—nasjonal digi al samhandling il bes e o pasien e og b uke e [English: Consul a ion Pape : Amendmen s o he Pa ien Medical Reco ds Ac e c.—Na ional Digi al Collabo a ion in he Bes In e es o Pa ien s and Use s]. A ailable on- line: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e /ho ing-om-end inge -i-pasien jou nallo en-m .-nasjonal-digi al- samhandling- il-bes e- o -pasien e -og-b uke e/id2865518/ (accessed on 29 Oc obe 2021). No wegian Minis y o Jus ice and Public Secu i y. 2019. Hø ingsno a : End inge i u lendings o sk i en—Behandling a pe - sonopplysninge , b uk a au oma ise e a gjø else m.m. [English: Consul a ion pape : Amendmen s o he Regula ions on Fo eigne s Access o No way—P ocessing o Pe sonal Da a, Use o Au oma ed Decisions, e c.]. A ailable online: h ps: //www. egje ingen.no/con en asse s/907ec51527e 4e8 a3c7 1 2a92 c3/ho ingsno a .pd (accessed on 10 Augus 2021). No wegian Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s. 2019. P op. 135L (2019–2020) End inge i a beids- og el e ds o al ningslo en, sosial jenes elo en, lo om S a ens pensjonskasse og enkel e and e lo e (behandling a pe sonopplysninge ) [English: Bill 135L (2019–2020) P oposal o amend he Labou and Wel a e Ac , Social Se ices Ac , Na ional Insu ance Ac , Public Se ice Pension Fund Ac and o he laws.]. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e /p op.-135-l-20192020/id2714572/ (accessed on 10 Augus 2021). No wegian Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode insa ion. 2015–2016. Meld.S .27 (2015–2016). Digi al agenda o No ge: IKT o en enkle e h e dag og øk p oduk i i e . A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/no/dokumen e /meld.-s .-27-20152016/id248 3795/ (accessed on 17 Oc obe 2021). Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode nisa ion. 2019. S a egy pape : One digi al public sec o : Digi al s a egy o he public sec o 2019–2025. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/en/dokumen e /one-digi al-public-sec o /id2653874/ (accessed on 17 Oc obe 2021). No wegian Minis y o Local Go e nmen and Mode nisa ion. 2020. Na ional S a egy o A i icial In elligence. Documen 01/2020. A ailable online: h ps://www. egje ingen.no/con en asse s/1 ebbbb2c4 d4b7d92c67ddd353b6ae8/en-gb/pd s/ki-s a egi_ en.pd (accessed on 16 Oc obe 2021). OECD. 2017. Digi al Go e nmen Re iew o No way: Boos ing he Digi al T ans o ma ion o he Public Sec o . Pa is: OECD Publishing. [C ossRe ] P epa a o y Wo ks o he Tax Managemen Bill. 2015–2016. P epa a o y Wo ks o Bill 38L (2015–2016) p oposing an Ac on Tax Managemen 2015. (A ailable only in No wegian: P op. 38L (2015–2016) Lo om ska e o al ning). Russell, S ua , and Pe e No ig. 2020. A i icial In elligence: A Mode n App oach, 4 h ed. Englewood Cli s: P en ice Hall. Sa o , Gio anni, and F ancesca Lagioia. 2020. The Impac o he Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion (GDPR) on A i icial In elligence. B ussels: Eu opean Pa liamen a y Resea ch Se ice, Scien i ic Fo esigh Uni (STOA) PE 641.530, A ailable online: h ps: //www.eu opa l.eu opa.eu/s oa/en/documen /EPRS_STU(2020)641530 (accessed on 23 Oc obe 2021). Adm. Sci. 2021,11, 149 23 o 23 Scha um, Dag Wiese. 1993. Re ssikke he og sys emu ikling i o en lig o al ning (Rule o law and Sys ems De elopmen in Public Adminis a ion). Oslo: Uni e si e es o lage . Scha um, Dag Wiese. 2012. F a lo eks il p og amkode. U ikling a e slige beslu ningssys eme i elek onisk o al ning. A ailable online: h ps://www.uio.no/s udie /emne /jus/a in/FINF4001/h11/F a%20lo eks %20 il%20p og amkode%202011-1.pd (accessed on 22 Oc obe 2021). Scha um, Dag Wiese. 2018. Digi alise ing a o en lig o al ning—F a lo eks il p og amkode. Oslo: Fagbok o lage . Scha um, Dag Wiese. 2020. F om Legal Sou ces o P og amming Code: Au oma ic Indi idual Decisions in Public Adminis a ion and Compu e s unde he Rule o Law. In The Camb idge Handbook o he Law o Algo i hms. Edi ed by Wood ow Ba ield. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, pp. 301–335. Scha um, Dag Wiese, A ild Jansen, and Tommy T an ik. 2017. Digi al Fo al ning—En inn ø ing. Oslo: Fagbok o lage . Selbs , And ew D, and Julia Powles. 2017. Meaning ul In o ma ion and he Righ o Explana ion. In e na ional Da a P i acy Law 7: 233. [C ossRe ] S ub, Ma ius. 2011. Tilsyns o al ningens kon oll i ksomhe : Unde søkelse og beslag I el e mellom o al ningsp osess og s a ep osess. Oslo: Uni e si e s o lage . Swedish Law Commission on he Bene i C ime Ac . 2018. S a ens O en liga U edninga SOU 2018:14. Bid agsb o och unde ä - elseskyldighe id elak iga u be alninga ån äl ä dssys emen—en u ä de ing [English: Bene i Viola ions and No i ica ion Obliga ions in he E en o Inco ec Paymen s om he Wel a e Sys em—An E alua ion]. A ailable online: h p://www.sou.go .se/wp-con en / uploads/2018/02/SOU-2018_14_ ill-webben.pd (accessed on 24 Oc obe 2021). Tosoni, Luca. 2021. The igh o objec o au oma ed indi idual decisions: Resol ing he ambigui y o A icle 22(1) o he Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion. In e na ional Da a P i acy Law 11: 145–62. [C ossRe ] UN. 2020. E-Go e nmen Su ey 2020: Digi al Go e nmen in he Decade o Ac ion o Sus ainable De elopmen . New Yo k: UN, A ail- able online: h ps://www.un.o g/de elopmen /desa/publica ions/publica ion/2020-uni ed-na ions-e-go e nmen -su ey (accessed on 10 Augus 2021). Wach e , Sand a, B en Mi els ad , and Luciano Flo idi. 2017. Why a Righ o Explana ion o Au oma ed Decision-Making Does No Exis in he Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion. In e na ional Da a P i acy Law 7: 76–99. [C ossRe ]