  Automated decision-making systems are being increasingly deployed and affect
the public in a multitude of positive and negative ways. Governmental and
private institutions use these systems to process information according to
certain human-devised rules in order to address social problems or
organizational challenges. Both research and real-world experience indicate
that the public lacks trust in automated decision-making systems and the
institutions that deploy them. The recreancy theorem argues that the public is
more likely to trust and support decisions made or influenced by automated
decision-making systems if the institutions that administer them meet their
fiduciary responsibility. However, often the public is never informed of how
these systems operate and resultant institutional decisions are made. A ``black
box'' effect of automated decision-making systems reduces the public's
perceptions of integrity and trustworthiness. The result is that the public
loses the capacity to identify, challenge, and rectify unfairness or the costs
associated with the loss of public goods or benefits.
  The current position paper defines and explains the role of fiduciary
responsibility within an automated decision-making system. We formulate an
automated decision-making system as a data science lifecycle (DSL) and examine
the implications of fiduciary responsibility within the context of the DSL.
Fiduciary responsibility within DSLs provides a methodology for addressing the
public's lack of trust in automated decision-making systems and the
institutions that employ them to make decisions affecting the public. We posit
that fiduciary responsibility manifests in several contexts of a DSL, each of
which requires its own mitigation of sources of mistrust. To instantiate
fiduciary responsibility, a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) predictive
policing case study is examined.
