This article looks at three main issues raised by the PNR scheme: (i) the base-rate fallacy and its effect on false positives; (ii) built-in biases; and (iii) opacity and unchallengeability of the decisions generated, and at whether the Court has properly addressed them. It concludes that the AG and the Court failed to address the evidentiary issues including the base-rate fallacy—a lethal defect. It also finds that neither the Member States nor the Commission have even tried to assess whether the operation of the PNR Directive has resulted in discriminatory outputs or outcomes; and that the Court should have demanded that they produce serious, verifiable data on this, including on whether the PNR system has led in practice to discrimination. But it also finds that the AG and the Court provided important guidance on the third issue, in that they made clear that the use of unexplainable and hence unreviewable and unchallengeable “black box” machine-learning artificial intelligence (ML/AI) systems violates the very essence of the right to an effective remedy. This means that any EU Member State that still uses such opaque ML/AI systems in its PNR screening will be in violation of the law.

中文翻译：

---

PNR 判决是否解决了大规模监控引发的核心问题？

本文着眼于 PNR 方案提出的三个主要问题：(i) 基本费率谬误及其对误报的影响；(ii) 内在偏见；(iii) 所作出的决定的不透明性和不可质疑性，以及法院是否妥善处理了这些问题。其结论是，总检察长和法院未能解决证据问题，包括基本费率谬误——这是一个致命的缺陷。它还发现，成员国和委员会都没有尝试评估 PNR 指令的实施是否导致了歧视性产出或结果；法院应该要求他们就此提供严肃的、可验证的数据，包括 PNR 系统是否在实践中导致了歧视。但它还发现，总检察长和法院就第三个问题提供了重要指导，因为他们明确表示，使用无法解释、因此无法审查和不可质疑的“黑匣子”机器学习人工智能（ML/AI）系统违反了获得有效补救的权利的本质。这意味着任何在 PNR 筛查中仍然使用此类不透明的 ML/AI 系统的欧盟成员国都将违反法律。