《个人信息保护法》第24条规定，个人认为自动化决策对其权益造成重大影响的，有权要求个人信息处理者予以说明，此条被认为是对算法解释权的明文确定。但是，对于权益主体的确定、权益影响的程度以及解释内容的要求，第24条并未进一步做出具体规定，考虑到公私领域对算法解释规范对象和规范目标的不同，在私人领域中，算法解释的权益主体应为确定型主体，其形式权益遭受影响才能提出算法解释的主张，而信息处理者只需对算法进行事物性解释，在公共领域中，算法解释的主体应为确定或相关型主体，无论是形式还是实质权益遭受影响都可以提出算法解释的主张，而信息处理者需对算法进行事物或事理性解释，此举有利于促进技术发展与权利保障、公共利益与个人利益之间的价值平衡。

According to Article 24 of the “Personal Information Protection Law”, if an individual believes that automated decision-making has made a significant impact on his rights and benefits, he has the right to request an explanation from the information processor. This article is considered to be a clear text for the algorithm decision explanation rules. For an algorithm decision explanation requirement, there must be a definite of rights and benefits in the subject, the reason must be that it has a significant impact on its rights and benefits, and there must be an objective interpretation standard in the content. However, Article 24 does not provide a further specific provisions for the determination of the subject of rights and benefits. Considering the differences in the normative objects and objectives of algorithm interpretation in the public and private domain, in the private domain, the subject of the interest of algorithm interpretation should be a deterministic subject, and only when its formal interest is affected can it propose the proposition of algorithm interpretation, while the information processor only needs to interpret the algorithm in a physical way. In the public domain, the subject of algorithm interpretation should be a deterministic or relevant subject. In addition, no matter its form or substantive rights and interests are affected, the claim of algorithmic interpretation can be put forward, and information processors need to explain the algorithm by things or things, so as to promote the value balance between technological development and rights protection, public interests and personal interests.

D922

杭州市哲学社会科学常规项目（Z23JC079）；国家社会科学基金一般项目（21BFX126）