This sort of unjustifiable secrecy (the accused absolutely have a right to examine the premises of the accusation) can be regulated. Unfortunately, this law substitutes nebulous criteria which, no matter how worthy, are likely to turn a clear-cut situation into a tar-pit of legal wrangling that the victims cannot afford to enter.
The chief medical examiner is still holding fast on the very dubious claim that these flaws raise no doubts about the convictions in other cases where it was used, another area where I think specific legislation is needed.
> How do you regulate algorithmic learning when we don't fully understand how learning works?
This was not one of those cases. There are, however, cases - and this would be one if it applied - where it is reasonable to say that you can't use it until you can explain how it works.
If it breaks on edge cases, that's important.
There is no binary choice between "not regulated at all" and "completely regulated".
For example, just implementing a process for public scrutiny of algorithms and datasets may result in those building the algorithms and collecting the data becoming more aware of their biases. (That's "may" with a capital M, though.)
That's true, and despite that it will change things.