Massachusetts 2023-2024 Regular Session

Massachusetts Senate Bill S33 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	1 of 1
2	2	SENATE DOCKET, NO. 996 FILED ON: 1/18/2023
3	3	SENATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 33
4	4	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
5	5	_________________
6	6	PRESENTED BY:
7	7	Jason M. Lewis
8	8	_________________
9	9	To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
10	10	Court assembled:
11	11	The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill:
12	12	An Act establishing a commission on automated decision-making by government in the
13	13	commonwealth.
14	14	_______________
15	15	PETITION OF:
16	16	NAME:DISTRICT/ADDRESS :Jason M. LewisFifth MiddlesexMichael O. MooreSecond Worcester2/15/2023 1 of 8
17	17	SENATE DOCKET, NO. 996 FILED ON: 1/18/2023
18	18	SENATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 33
19	19	By Mr. Lewis, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 33) of Jason M. Lewis and Michael
20	20	O. Moore for legislation to establish a commission on automated decision-making by
21	21	government in the commonwealth. Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and
22	22	Cybersecurity.
23	23	[SIMILAR MATTER FILED IN PREVIOUS SESSION
24	24	SEE SENATE, NO. 2688 OF 2021-2022.]
25	25	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
26	26	_______________
27	27	In the One Hundred and Ninety-Third General Court
28	28	(2023-2024)
29	29	_______________
30	30	An Act establishing a commission on automated decision-making by government in the
31	31	commonwealth.
32	32	Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
33	33	of the same, as follows:
34	34	1 Chapter 7D of the General Laws, as amended by chapter 64 of the acts of 2020, is hereby
35	35	2further amended by inserting after section 10 the following new section:-
36	36	3 Section 11. (a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following
37	37	4meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
38	38	5 “Algorithm”, a specific procedure, set of rules, or order of operations designed to solve a
39	39	6problem or make a calculation, classification, or recommendation. 2 of 8
40	40	7 “Artificial intelligence”, computerized methods and tools, including but not limited to
41	41	8machine learning and natural language processing, that act in a way that resembles human
42	42	9cognitive abilities when it comes to solving problems or performing certain tasks.
43	43	10 “Automated decision system”, any computer program, method, statistical model, or
44	44	11process that aims to aid or replace human decision-making using algorithms or artificial
45	45	12intelligence. These systems can include analyzing complex datasets about human populations
46	46	13and government services or other activities to generate scores, predictions, classifications, or
47	47	14recommendations used by agencies to make decisions that impact human welfare.
48	48	15 “Commonwealth of Massachusetts or “Massachusetts office”, any agency, constitutional
49	49	16office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of
50	50	17any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a
51	51	18public purpose.
52	52	19 “Identified group characteristic", age, race, creed, color, religion, national origin, gender,
53	53	20disability, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, receipt of public assistance, economic
54	54	21status, location of residence, or citizenship status.
55	55	22 “Source code”, the structure of a computer program that can be read and understood by
56	56	23people.
57	57	24 “Training data”, the data used to inform the development of an automated decision
58	58	25system and the decisions or recommendations it generates.
59	59	26 (b) There shall be a commission within the executive office of technology services and
60	60	27security for the purpose of studying and making recommendations relative to the use by the 3 of 8
61	61	28commonwealth of automated decision systems that may affect human welfare, including but not
62	62	29limited to the legal rights and privileges of individuals. The commission shall evaluate
63	63	30government use of automated decision systems in the commonwealth and make
64	64	31recommendations to the legislature regarding appropriate regulations, limits, standards and
65	65	32safeguards. The commission shall:
66	66	33 (i) undertake a complete and specific survey of all uses of automated decision systems by
67	67	34the commonwealth of Massachusetts and the purposes for which such systems are used,
68	68	35including but not limited to:
69	69	36 (a) the principles, policies, and guidelines adopted by specific Massachusetts offices to
70	70	37inform the procurement, evaluation, and use of automated decision systems, and the procedures
71	71	38by which such principles, policies, and guidelines are adopted;
72	72	39 (b) the training specific Massachusetts offices provide to individuals using automated
73	73	40decision systems, and the procedures for enforcing the principles, policies, and guidelines
74	74	41regarding their use;
75	75	42 (c) the manner by which Massachusetts offices validate and test the automated decision
76	76	43systems they use, and the manner by which they evaluate those systems on an ongoing basis,
77	77	44specifying the training data, input data, systems analysis, studies, vendor or community
78	78	45engagement, third-parties, or other methods used in such validation, testing, and evaluation;
79	79	46 (d) matters related to the transparency, explicability, auditability, and accountability of
80	80	47automated decision systems in use in Massachusetts offices, including information about their
81	81	48structure; the processes guiding their procurement, implementation and review; whether they can 4 of 8
82	82	49be audited externally and independently; and the people who operate such systems and the
83	83	50training they receive;
84	84	51 (e) the manner and extent to which Massachusetts offices make the automated decision
85	85	52systems they use available to external review, and any existing policies, laws, procedures, or
86	86	53guidelines that may limit external access to data or technical information that is necessary for
87	87	54audits, evaluation, or validation of such systems; and
88	88	55 (f) procedures and policies in place to protect the due process rights of individuals
89	89	56directly affected by Massachusetts offices’ use of automated decision systems, including but not
90	90	57limited to public disclosure and transparency procedures;
91	91	58 (ii) consult with experts in the fields of machine learning, algorithmic bias, algorithmic
92	92	59auditing, and civil and human rights;
93	93	60 (iii) examine research related to the use of automated decision systems that directly or
94	94	61indirectly result in disparate outcomes for individuals or communities based on an identified
95	95	62group characteristic;
96	96	63 (iv) conduct a survey of technical, legal, or policy controls to improve the just and
97	97	64equitable use of automated decision systems and mitigate any disparate impacts deriving from
98	98	65their use, including best practices, policy tools, laws, and regulations developed through research
99	99	66and academia or proposed or implemented in other states and jurisdictions;
100	100	67 (v) examine matters related to data sources, data sharing agreements, data security
101	101	68provisions, compliance with data protection laws and regulations, and all other issues related to 5 of 8
102	102	69how data is protected, used, and shared by agencies using automated decision systems, in
103	103	70Massachusetts and in other jurisdictions;
104	104	71 (vi) examine matters related to automated decision systems and intellectual property,
105	105	72such as the existence of non-disclosure agreements, trade secrets claims, and other proprietary
106	106	73interests, and the impacts of intellectual property considerations on transparency, explicability,
107	107	74auditability, accountability, and due process; and
108	108	75 (vii) examine any other opportunities and risks associated with the use of automated
109	109	76decision systems by Massachusetts offices.
110	110	77 (c) The commission shall consist of the secretary of technology services and security or
111	111	78the secretary’s designee, who shall serve as chair; 1 member of the Senate, designated by the
112	112	79Senate president; 1 member of the house of representatives, designated by the speaker of the
113	113	80house of representatives; the house and senate chairs of the joint committee on state
114	114	81administration and regulatory oversight; the chief justice of the supreme judicial court or a
115	115	82designee; the attorney general or a designee; the state auditor or a designee; the inspector general
116	116	83or a designee; the secretaries of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, and
117	117	84Executive Office of Health and Human Services, or their designees; the Commissioner of the
118	118	85Department of Children and Families, or their designee; the chief counsel of the committee for
119	119	86public counsel services or a designee; the chief legal counsel of the Massachusetts Bar
120	120	87Association or a designee; the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of
121	121	88Massachusetts or a designee; 6 representatives from academic institutions in the Commonwealth
122	122	89who shall be experts in (i) artificial intelligence and machine learning, (ii) data science and
123	123	90information policy, (iii) social implications of artificial intelligence and technology; or (iv) 6 of 8
124	124	91technology and the law, 3 to be appointed by the House Chair and 3 to be appointed by the
125	125	92Senate Chair of the joint committee on advanced information technology and cybersecurity; the
126	126	93executive director of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute or a designee; 1 representative
127	127	94from the National Association of Social Workers; 1 representative from the NAACP; 5
128	128	95representatives from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative; and 1 representative from the
129	129	96Massachusetts High Technology Council.
130	130	97 (d) Members of the commission shall be appointed within 45 days of the effective date of
131	131	98this act. The commission shall meet at the call of the chair based on the commission’s workload
132	132	99but not fewer than 10 times per calendar year. The commission shall hold at least one public
133	133	100hearing to solicit feedback from Massachusetts residents and other interested parties. The
134	134	101commission’s meetings shall be broadcast over the internet.
135	135	102 (e) The commission shall submit an annual report by December 31 to the governor, the
136	136	103clerks of the house of representatives and the senate, and the joint committee on advanced
137	137	104information technology and cybersecurity. The report will be a public record and it shall include,
138	138	105but not be limited to:
139	139	106 (i) a description of the commission’s activities and any community engagement
140	140	107undertaken by the commission;
141	141	108 (ii) the commission's findings, including but not limited to the publication of a list of all
142	142	109automated decision systems in use in Massachusetts offices, the policies, procedures, and
143	143	110training guidelines in place to govern their use, and any contracts with third parties pertaining to
144	144	111the acquisition or deployment of such systems; and 7 of 8
145	145	112 (iii) any recommendations for regulatory or legislative action, including but not limited to
146	146	113the following:
147	147	114 (a) recommendations about areas where Massachusetts offices ought not to use
148	148	115automated decision systems;
149	149	116 (b) recommendations about whether and how existing state laws, regulations, programs,
150	150	117policies, and practices related to the use of automated decision systems should be amended to
151	151	118promote racial and economic justice, equity, fairness, accountability, and transparency;
152	152	119 (c) recommendations for the development and implementation of policies and procedures
153	153	120that may be used by the state for the following purposes:
154	154	121 (i) to allow a person affected by a rule, policy, or action made by, or with the assistance
155	155	122of, an automated decision system, to request and receive an explanation of such rule, policy, or
156	156	123action and the basis therefor;
157	157	124 (ii) to determine whether an automated decision system disproportionately or unfairly
158	158	125impacts a person or group based on an identified group characteristic;
159	159	126 (iii) to determine prior to or during the procurement or acquisition process whether a
160	160	127proposed agency automated decision system is likely to disproportionately or unfairly impact a
161	161	128person or group based on an identified group characteristic;
162	162	129 (iv) to address instances in which a person or group is harmed by an agency automated
163	163	130decision system if any such system is found to disproportionately impact a person or group on
164	164	131the basis of an identified group characteristic; and 8 of 8
165	165	132 (v) to make information publicly available that, for each automated decision system, will
166	166	133allow the public to meaningfully assess how such system functions and is used by the state,
167	167	134including making technical information about such system publicly available.