KazakhstanDigital Code, algorithmic decision-making rights
Digital Code No. 255-VIII (), Art. 43
In force since .
An AI transparency rule binding public and private bodies.
- How the hook was established
- express
- What makes it apply
- Place of effect
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Tell a person, on request, that a fully automated algorithmic system, an AI system included, was used to make a decision affecting them.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8
- Give the person an explanation of the key factors and criteria that influenced the decision, without disclosing the algorithm, source code or a legally protected secret.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.9
- Allow the person to demand review of the decision by an authorised specialist where it carries legal consequences or can affect their rights and legitimate interests.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 3.3
- Do not let a decision made using an algorithmic system result in discrimination on a ground Kazakhstani law sets out.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.11
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
- MEASURE 2.9The AI model is explained, validated, and documented, and AI system output is interpreted within its context – as identified in the MAP function – to inform responsible use and governance.
- MEASURE 2.11Fairness and bias – as identified in the MAP function – are evaluated and results are documented.
- MEASURE 3.3Feedback processes for end users and impacted communities to report problems and appeal system outcomes are established and integrated into AI system evaluation metrics.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
What it makes you log
Who may demand the log
Data subject
What the log must hold
Decision basis, Human involvement
Logging duty
Article 43(4) never names a log, a record or an audit trail. It entitles the subject of a fully automated algorithmic decision to learn that the system was used, to obtain an explanation of the key factors and criteria that influenced that specific decision, and to demand review by an authorised specialist. Producing a case-specific explanation of which factors influenced one decision, on request, cannot be done without some record of what happened in that decision instance, which is the implicit pattern: demonstrating or producing on demand something only a record could show.
- Kind
- Implicit
- As of
- Provision
- Art. 43(4)
- Trigger
- automated_decisions
What this law does
Article 43 defines an algorithmic system as a digital system that makes, or influences the making of, a decision based on automated data processing, including an AI system, and states that decisions made using an algorithmic system must not result in discrimination on grounds Kazakhstani law sets out.
Where a decision is made entirely without human involvement in assessing the circumstances or approving the outcome, in cases provided for by law or agreement, the subject of that decision has the right, in cases and in the manner the legislation sets, to learn that an algorithmic system was used, to obtain an explanation of the key factors and criteria that influenced the decision without disclosure of the algorithm, source code, or legally protected secrets, and to demand review of the decision by an authorised specialist where the decision carries legal consequences or is capable of affecting the person's rights and legitimate interests.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app makes high-risk automated decisions.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .