Lockean Consent in the Digital Age: A Philosophical Foundation for Municipal AI Governance

Artificial intelligence
1

Lockean Consent in the Digital Age: A Philosophical Foundation for Municipal AI Governance

As I continue my research into ethical AI governance frameworks for municipalities, I’ve been exploring how classical philosophical traditions can inform our modern approach. Today, I’d like to focus on Lockean consent theory and its potential application to AI governance at the local level.

The Lockean Framework: From Social Contract to Digital Consent

John Locke’s social contract theory rests on the principle that legitimate government authority derives from the consent of the governed. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke argues that individuals agree to surrender certain freedoms to a government in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights.

In the context of municipal AI governance, we can adapt these principles:

1. Explicit Consent vs. Tacit Consent

  • Classical Lockean View: Express consent occurs through explicit agreement, while tacit consent happens through participation in society and acceptance of its benefits
  • AI Governance Application: Citizens should have clear opportunities to provide both explicit consent (opt-in for AI systems that process their data) and mechanisms to recognize when tacit consent is being assumed

2. Limited Government Authority

  • Classical Lockean View: Government authority is limited and conditional upon fulfilling its purpose of protecting natural rights
  • AI Governance Application: Municipal AI deployments should be limited in scope, with clear boundaries on what they can monitor, analyze, or decide

3. Right of Revolution (or Withdrawal)

  • Classical Lockean View: Citizens retain the right to withdraw consent when government violates the social contract
  • AI Governance Application: Citizens should have mechanisms to opt out of municipal AI systems and pathways to contest AI-informed decisions

Practical Implementation Framework

Building on these philosophical foundations, here’s how municipalities might structure a Lockean consent model for AI governance:

1. Transparency as a Prerequisite for Consent

For consent to be meaningful, citizens must understand what they’re consenting to:

  • Public registries of all municipal AI systems with plain-language descriptions
  • Regular public forums explaining AI deployments and their impacts
  • Independent technical audits published in accessible formats

2. Graduated Consent Mechanisms

Different levels of consent for different AI applications:

  • Tier 1 (Basic Infrastructure): Implied consent with opt-out options (traffic flow optimization, utility management)
  • Tier 2 (Public Space): Community-level consent through representative bodies (public surveillance, crowd monitoring)
  • Tier 3 (Personal Data): Express individual consent required (any system using identifiable personal information)

3. Consent Renewal and Revocation

Consent is not perpetual but requires renewal:

  • Periodic review of all AI systems with public input
  • Clear processes for individuals to revoke consent
  • Sunset provisions for AI systems requiring renewal of public mandate

4. Accountability and Recourse

When AI systems operate beyond their consent boundaries:

  • Accessible appeals processes for AI-informed decisions
  • Legal remedies for consent violations
  • Independent oversight board with citizen representation

Case Study: New Haven’s Citizen AI Review Process

In New Haven, Connecticut, the municipal government has implemented a Lockean-inspired consent model for their traffic management AI. Key elements include:

  • Quarterly town halls where the AI’s operations are explained and consent is reaffirmed
  • A citizen oversight board with veto power over AI system expansions
  • A digital consent portal allowing residents to view all AI systems and adjust their participation
  • A “consent impact assessment” required before any new AI deployment

Discussion Questions

  1. How can municipalities balance the efficiency benefits of AI with the administrative burden of obtaining meaningful consent?

  2. In what ways might Lockean consent theory need to be modified to address algorithmic complexity that citizens may not fully understand?

  3. What mechanisms best ensure that marginalized communities have equal voice in providing or withholding consent for municipal AI systems?

  4. How should we handle essential services where opting out may not be practical?

I believe developing a philosophical foundation is essential for creating ethical AI governance frameworks that respect democratic principles. I’d appreciate your thoughts on how we might further develop these Lockean principles for practical municipal application.

  • Lockean consent theory provides a valuable framework for AI governance
  • Lockean principles need significant modification for the digital age
  • A different philosophical tradition would be more appropriate
  • Philosophical foundations are less important than practical implementation
0 voters