[buzer]

> this is most likely highly illegal to use in the EU due to violating anti discrimination laws in multiple ways.

It's generally illegal under GDPR Article 22.

> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

Exceptions in 22(2) are unlikely to apply. It's hard to argue that it's truly necessary (a) and consent (c) is almost always unavailable in employment context. (b) might apply, but it requires specific law in EU or Member State to authorize it.

[bluGill]

For C: I'm not sure how EU laws work, but ethics says that someone who needs a job cannot give consent since the possibility of a job if they give consent could be a bribe. See a lawyer for how it works in your country.

[dathinab]

also not fully sure, but AFIK there are limits to how far you can wave this right, in context of things like TOS, simple opt-in fields on forms etc.

Like YT would have loved to make you opt out of it (and probably has it in their TOS) but there where multiple cases of courts forcing them to handle it properly in the past as far as I remember.

My _guess_ is that at least if you don't sign a proper contract you can always force a human reevaluation. But also only that (so only semi useful). Also even with a proper contract it's unclear if it would be possible in this specific case due to the contract being fundamentally one-side/unfair and semi-forced on you if it where wide spread on the market for the specific job you are trying to get.

[bluGill]

Those limits exist too, but even if the law doesn't give limits, ethics does.

[buzer]

That's why I said consent usually cannot be used in employment context. I wouldn't rule it out 100% for everything employment related, but application screening is unlikely to qualify for those rare cases.

[dathinab]

this isn't quite how GDPR Article 22 works

The is a difference between

- having a right you can't wave - which is very similar to something being forbidden - but different to having a right you fully or partially can wave

Furthermore to some degree you are only "subject to a decision based on ..." if the decision has an effects affecting you.

In practice wrt. Article 22 this means companies can make a "decision solely based on automated processing[..]" iff they give you a (realistic) chance to object to it in which case they will do a human review of the decision where a human confirms/changes this decision based on reviewing the involved information.

There is a lot of gray area what a "chance to object" means and when a human review makes an decision no longer "solely based on automated processing" (a human just saying AI was right clearly doesn't count, but a human constructing a case why they would have decided the same way based on the why the AI did the decision can count, iff it's reasonable to assume a human might have come to the decision had it only been reviews by an human).

Or in other words GDRP Article 22, just "soso" meaningful in context of hiring.

Like if the AI did a mistake they have to reevaluate it, but as long as there are other similarly qualified competitor (they did hire/are in process of hiring) it quite easy to come up with a reason why they are a better choice for them. Or go through the motions of you being in round 2,3 of hiring and then find an excuse to not hire you.

[buzer]

Mostly yes.

Note the chance to object must be given before decision is made, i.e. not to give option for human review after the fact. Human must also be able to actually have meaningful chance to affect the decision.

If the decision is based on purely objective facts that are actually necessary (like you must have certain license) then human and computer always coming to same decision is likely correct and compliant, but as soon as you start putting in subjective criteria and human agrees with 100% of computer denials it becomes a lot harder to demonstrate that human is actually able to affect the decision as required by Article 5. Note that demonstration burden is on controller, not on data subject/DPA.

Objective criteria also isn't always enough by itself. If both human and computer calculate the same credit score and you must score X points to get a loan then human isn't actually able to affect the decision. Essentially the credit score calculation itself ends up being the automated decision rather than the formal rejection that is later given to data subject.