This article uses a theoretical and methodological framework derived from the political theorist Quentin Skinner and the conceptual historian Reinhart Koselleck to examine ideational and conceptual tensions and shifts related to the transparency of algorithmic and other automatic governmental decision-making in Finland. Most of the research material comprises national and international official documents and semi-structured expert interviews. In Finland, the concepts of ‘algorithmic transparency’ and other ‘transparency of automatic decision-making’ are situated amongst a complex array of legal, ethical, political, policy-oriented, managerial, and technical semantic fields. From 2016 to 2019 Finland’s Deputy Ombudsman of Parliament and the Constitutional Committee of Parliament pinpointed issues in algorithmic and other automatic decision-making with the consequence that at the turn of 2019 and 2020, the Ministry of Justice started moving towards the preparation of new legislation to resolve these issues. In conclusion and as expected, Finland’s version of the Nordic tradition of the public sphere with established legal guarantees of public access to government documents indeed has both important enabling and constraining effects upon resolving the transparency issues.
AnannyM. & CrawfordK. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the ideal of transparency and its application to algorithmic transparency. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989.
2.
Aurora (2020). Lausuntopyyntö kansallisen tekoälyohjelma AuroraAI:n kehittämis- ja toimintasuunnitelmasta vuosille 2019–2023 (Opinion request concerning the development and operation plan of the national AI program AuroraAI; includes the AuroraAI program, see below, MF, 2019). Available at: https://www.lausuntopalvelu.fi/FI/Proposal/ShowAllProposalAnswers?/prooposalIId=6bca7323-c799-4956-192e-7965deed5f6.
3.
BlomgrenM., & SahlinK. (2007). Quests for transparency – Signs of a new institutional era? In ChristensenT. & LaegreidP. (Eds.), Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms, pp. 155-177. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
4.
BuffatA. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and e-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149-161.
5.
CarlssonU.GoldbergD. (Eds.) (2017). The Legacy of Peter Forsskål: 250 Years of Freedom of Expression. Gothenburg; University of Gothenburg & Nordicom. Available at: http://www.nordicom.gu.se/en/publikationer/legacy-peterforsskal.
6.
CC (2016). Perustulokokeilua koskeva lainsäädäntö (Legislation on the basic income experiment). Finland, Parliament, Constitutional Committee, PeVL 51/2016 vp. Available at: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Lausunto/Sivut/PeVL_51+2016.aspx.
7.
CC (2018a). Maahanmuuttolainsäädäntöä koskeva lausunto (Report on immigration legislation). Finland, Parliament, Constitutional Committee, PeVL 62/2018 vp. Available at: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Lausunto/Sivut/PeVL_62+2018.aspx.
8.
CC (2018b). Lentoliikenteen matkustajarekisteritietojen käyttöä koskevaan lainnsäädäntöön liittyvä lausunto (Report related to legislation on the use of air traffic passenger registry data). Finland, Parliament, Constitutional Committee, PeVL 29/2018 vp. Available at: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Lausunto/Sivut/PeVL_29+2018.aspx.
9.
CC (2019). Maahanmuuttoviraston tiedonkäyttöä koskeva lainsäädäntö (Legislation on the use of information by the Immigration Service). Finland, Parliament, Constitutional Committee, PeVL 7/2019). Available at: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Lausunto/Sivut/PeVL:7+2918.aspx.
10.
Chancellor of Justice. (2019). Tuomas Pöysti: Towards human-centric and fair AI with the rule of law. February 27, 2019. Finland: Chancellor of Justice. Available at: https://www.okv.fi/en/tiedotteet-ja-puheenvuorot/500/tuomas-poysti-towards-human-centric-and-fair-ai-rule-law/.
11.
Council of Europe. (2018a). Study on the human rights dimensions of automated data processing techniques (in particular algorithms) and possible regulatory implications. DGI(2017)12. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/algorithms-and-human-rights-en-rev/16807956b5.
12.
Council of Europe. (2018b). CEPEJ European Ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Judicial Systems and Their Environment. Council of Europe. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/cepej-european-ethical-charter-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicial-systems-and-their-environment.
13.
Council of Europe(2019)Conclusions from the conference governing the game changer – Impacts of artificial intelligence development on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/conclusions-helsinki-conference-26-27-02-2019/168093bfca
14.
DAPO (2020). Automaattinen päätöksenteko ja profilointi (Automatic decision-making and profiling). Helsinki: Data Protection Ombudsman. Available at: https://tietosuoja.fi/automaattinen-paatoksenteko-profilointi.
15.
DearP., & JasanoffS. (2010). Dismantling boundaries in science and technology studies. Isis, 101(4), 759-774.
16.
DPO (2019a). Maahanmuuttoviraston tiedonkäyttöä koskeva lainsäädäntö, lausunto eduskunnan perustuslakivaliokunnalle, EOAK/5341/2019 (Legislation on the use of information by the Immigration Service, statement of the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman before the Constitutional Committee of Parliament). Available at: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/JulkaisuMetatieto/Documents/EDK-2019-AK-262304.pdf.
17.
DPO (2019b). Verohallinnon automatisoitu päätöksenteko ei täytä perustuslain vaatimuksia, EOAK/3379/2018 (The automatic decision-making of the tax administration does not satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, statement of the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman on the DPO’s own initiative). Available at: https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/r/fi/ratkaisut/-/eoar/3379/2018.
18.
DPO (2019c). Verohallinnon automatisoitu maksujärjestely, EOAK/2216/2018. (Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision on automated fees in Tax Administration). Available at: https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/r/fi/ratkaisut/-/eoar/2216/2018.
19.
DPO. (2019d). Verohallinnon päätös laiminlyöntimaksusta, EOAK/2898/2018. (Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision on neglected payments in Tax Administration). Available at: https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/r/fi/ratkaisut/-/eoar/2898/2018.
20.
ErkkiläT. (2012). Government Transparency: Impacts and Unintended Consequences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
Espoo (2020). Yhteiset pelisäännöt työn alla: Kuinka viestiä kansalaisille tekoälyn käytöstä (Common rules under preparation: How to communicate to the citizens on AI use). Espoo: City of Espoo. Available at: https://www.espoo.fi/fi-FI/Yhteiset_pelisaannot_tyon_alla_Kuinka_vi(167193).
22.
Etairos (2020). Ethical AI for the governance of the society. Research project, funded by the Finnish Strategic Research Council. Available at: https://etairos.fi/etairos/.
23.
European Commission (2018a). Artificial intelligence for Europe. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-artificial-intelligence-europe.
24.
European Commission (2018b). Coordinated plan on artificial intelligence. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/publication/coordinated-plan-artificial-intelligence-com2018-795-final_en.
25.
European Commission (2019a). Building trust in human-centric artificial intelligence. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-building-trust-human-centric-artificial-intelligence.
26.
European Commission (2019b). Mission letter: Executive Vice-President-designate for a Europe fit for the digital age. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/mission-letter-margrethe-vestager_2019_en.pdf.
27.
European Commission (2019c). A Union that strives for more: My agenda for Europe. Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf.
28.
European Commission (2019d). Digital innovation hubs: Helping companies across the economy make the most of digital opportunities. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/digital-innovation-hubs-helping-companies-across-economy-make-most-digital-opportunities.
29.
European Commission (2020a). Smart specialisation platform: Digital innovation hubs catalogue. Available at: https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/digital-innovation-hubs-catalogue.
30.
European Commission (2020b). White Paper on artificial intelligence: A European approach to excellence and trust. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/white-paper-artificial-intelligence-european-approach-excellence-and-trust_en.
31.
European Council. (2018). Declaration of cooperation on artificial intelligence. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/en/community/digitranscope/document/eu-declaration-cooperation-artificial-intelligence.
32.
Finlex (1999). Henkilötietolaki (Act on data concerning persons, 22 April 1999, repealed since 1 January 2019. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/kumotut/1999/19990523.
33.
Finlex (2020a) Search in Finland’s law database with the keywords ‘publicness’ (julkisuus), ‘responsibility’ (vastuu), ‘accountability’ (tilivelvollisuus), ‘transparency’ (läpinäkyvyys and transparenssi), and ‘openness’ (avoimuus). The database is available at https://www.finlex.fi.
34.
Finlex (2020b). Laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta, literally Act on the publicness of the action of public authorities, in unofficial translation under the title Act on the openness of government activities (621/1999, amendments until 907/2015 included), a legally non-binding translation made at the Finnish Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990621_20150907.pdf.
35.
Finlex (2020c). The Constitution of Finland, 11 June 1999 (731/1999; amendments up to 817/2018 included), a legally non-binding translation made at the Finnish Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf.
36.
Finlex (2020d). Data protection act (1050/2018), a legally non-binding translation made at the Finnish Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2018/en20181050.pdf.
37.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,12(2), 219-245.
38.
FNTA (2020). Tekoälyn eettiset periaatteet verohallinnossa (The ethical principles of AI in tax administration). Helsinki: Finnish National Tax Administration. Available at: https://www.vero.fi/tietoa-verohallinnosta/verohallinnon_esittely/toiminta/vastuullisuus/tekoälyn-eettiset-periaatteet-verohallinnossa/.
39.
FuschP.I., & NessL.R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20(9), 1408-1416.
40.
GDPR (2016). General Data Protection Regulation. Available at: https://gdpr-info.eu.
41.
GiestS., & GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2020). Call for papers: Special issue on Algorithmic Transparency in Government, Information Polity. Available at: https://www.iospress.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Special_issue_IP_Algorithmic_transparency_def.pdf.
42.
Government (2019). Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi henkilötietojen käsittelystä maahanmuuttohallinnossa ja eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi (Government proposal to Parliament for an act on processing person-level data in the immigration administration and certain other, related acts). Available at: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/HallituksenEsitys/Sivut/HE_18+2019.aspx.
43.
HofmannJ.KerstingN.RitziC., & SchünemannW.J. (Eds.), Politik in der digitalen Gesellschaft: Zentrale Problemfelder und Forschungsperspektiven. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
44.
HölscherL. (1978). Öffentlichkeit. In BrunnerO.ConzeW., & R. Koselleck (Eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, Vol. 4, pp.. 413-467. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
45.
Interview. (2020). Any of the interviews carried out for this article. On the interviewees see the Appendix.
46.
KoivistoI. (2016). The anatomy of transparency: The concept and its multifarious implications. EUI Working Paper MWP 2016/9. Badia Fiesolana: EUI.
47.
KönigP.D., & WenzelburgerG. (2020). Opportunity for renewal of disruptive force? How artificial intelligence alters democratic politics. Government Information Quarterly 37(3), 1-11.
48.
KoselleckR. (2004). Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.
49.
LancasterK. (2017). Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(1), 93-103.
50.
LarssonS. (2013). Metaphors, law and digital phenomena: The Swedish pirate bay court case. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 21(4), 254-379.
51.
MF (2018). Government Report on Information Policy and Artificial Intelligence. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance. Available at: https://vm.fi/documents/10623/7768305/VM_Tiepo_selonteko_070219_ENG_WEB.pdf/89b99a8e-01a3-91e3-6ada-38056451ad3f/VM_Tiepo_selonteko_070219_ENG_WEB.pdf.pdf/VM_Tiepo_selonteko_070219_ENG_WEB.pdf.
52.
MF (2019). AuroraAI – kohti ihmiskeskeistä yhteiskuntaa: Kansallisen tekoaälyohjelma Auroran esiselvityshankkeessa tuotettu kehittaämis- ja toimeenpanosuunnitelma 2019-2023 (AuroraAI – Towards a human-centered society: The development and implementation plan 2019–2023, produced in the pre-examination project of the national AI program Aurora). Available at: https://vm.fi/documents/10623/1464506/AuroraAI+kehittämis-+ja+toimeenpanosuunnitelma+2019+–+2023.pdf/7c4e746d-e83f-cc83-97d9-f4322405255f/AuroraAI+kehittämis-+ja+toimeenpanosuunnitelma+2019+–+2023.pdf.
53.
MittelstadtB.D.AlloP.TaddeoM.WachterS., & FloridiL. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2): 1-21.
54.
MJ (2020a). Automaattiseen päätöksentekoon liittyvät yleislainsäädännön sääntelytarpeet (Regulatory needs in general legislation related to automatic decision-making). Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://api.hankeikkuna.fi/asiakirjat/ff3444f4-24c9-4ee8-8c9d-7bc581c0021a/796dac3f-4527-45c0-a7b8-d63024345ac8/JULKAISU_20200214084153.pdf.
55.
MJ (2020b). Automaattista päätöksentekoa koskevan hallinnon yleislainsäädännön valmistelu (Project to consider general administrative legislation regulating automatic decision-making in government). Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://oikeusministerio.fi/hanke?tunnus=OM021:00/2020.
56.
NatowR. (2020). The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 20(2), 160-173.
57.
PalonenK. (2004). Die Enzauberung der Begriffe: Das Umschreiben der politischen Begriffe bei Quentin Skinner and Reinhart Koselleck. Münster: LIT Verlag.
58.
PetersM.A. (2012). Managerialism and the neoliberal university: Prospects for new forms of ‘open management’ in higher education. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 5(1), 11-26.
59.
SchmidtV.A., & WoodM. (2019). Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public Administration 97(4), 727-740.
60.
SkinnerQ. (2002). Visions of Politics. Vol. I. On Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61.
SSIF (2016). Perustulokokeilun otantakoodi (The sampling code of the basic income experiment). Helsinki: Social Security Institution. Available at: https://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilun-otantakoodi.
62.
StokesE., & BowmanD.M. (2012). Looking back to the future of regulating new technologies: The cases of nanotechnologies and synthetic biology. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 235(2), 235-241.
63.
UH (2020). Algoritmisen läpinäkyvyyden mahdollisuudet ja rajoitukset (The possibilities and limitations of algorithmic decision-making). Research project funded by the Academy of Finland. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Available at: https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/fi/projects/algoritmisen-läpinäkyvyyden-mahdollisuudet-ja-rajoitukset.
64.
VealeM.Van KleekM., & BinnsR. (2018). Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In CHI 2018, April 21–26, 2018, Montréal, QC (pp. 1-14). Montréal: ACM Computer and Human Interaction.
65.
VN TEAS (2019a). Algoritmi päätöksentekijänä? (Algorithm as a decision-maker?). Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office. Available at: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161700.
66.
VN TEAS (2019b) Tekoäly viranomaistoiminnassa (AI in public authorities). Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office. Available at: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161345.
67.
von der LeyenU. (2019). Speech in the European Parliament Plenary Session. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_19_4230.
68.
WachterS.MittelstadtB., & FloridiL. (2017a). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99.
69.
WachterS.MittelstadtB., & FloridiL. (2017b). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.
