• The aim of this contribution is to analyse the real borderlines of the 'right to explanation' in the GDPR and to discretely distinguish between different levels of information and of consumers' awareness in the 'black box society'. In order to combine transparency and comprehensibility we propose the new concept of algorithm 'legibility'. • We argue that a systemic interpretation is needed in this field, since it can be beneficial not only for individuals but also for businesses. This may be an opportunity for auditing algorithms and correcting unknown machine biases, thus similarly enhancing the quality of decision-making outputs. • Accordingly, we show how a systemic interpretation of articles 13-15 and 22 GDPR is necessary, considering in particular that: the threshold of minimum human intervention required so that the decision-making is 'solely' automated (Art. 22(1)) can also include nominal human intervention; the envisaged 'significant effects' on individuals (Art. 22(1)) can encompass as well marketing manipulation, price discrimination, etc.; 'meaningful information' that should be provided to data subjects about the logic, significance and consequences of decision-making (Art. 15(1)(h)) should be read as 'legibility' of "architecture" and "implementation" of algorithmic processing; trade secret protection might limit the right of access of data subjects, but there is a general legal favour for data protection rights that should reduce the impact of trade secrets protection. • In addition, we recommend a 'legibility test' that data controllers should perform in order to comply with the duty to provide meaningful information about the logic involved in an automated decision-making.

中文翻译：

---

为什么通用数据保护条例中存在自动决策的易读性权利

• 此贡献的目的是分析GDPR 中“解释权”的真正边界，并在“黑匣子社会”中区分不同级别的信息和消费者意识。为了结合透明性和可理解性，我们提出了算法“易读性”的新概念。• 我们认为该领域需要系统性解释，因为它不仅对个人有益，而且对企业有益。这可能是审计算法和纠正未知机器偏差的机会，从而同样提高决策输出的质量。• 因此，我们展示了对 GDPR 第 13-15 条和第 22 条进行系统性解释的必要性，特别是考虑到：使决策“完全”自动化（第 22(1) 条）所需的最少人工干预的阈值也可以包括名义上的人工干预；设想的对个人的“重大影响”（第 22 条第（1）款）可以包括营销操纵、价格歧视等；应向数据主体提供有关决策的逻辑、重要性和后果的“有意义的信息”（第 15(1)(h) 条）应被解读为“架构”的“易读性”和算法的“实施”。加工; 商业秘密保护可能会限制数据主体的访问权，但对数据保护权有普遍的法律支持，应减少商业秘密保护的影响。• 此外，我们建议进行“易读性测试”