Her last intervention is unfortunate, because it is clear, for whoever is in the knows, that the ICO is siding with cookie paywalls, as the ICO generally tend to side with commercial interests regardless of their merit.
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Lord Culross also raises concerns over the provision of powers to the Secretary of State to amend the defintion of Automated Decision-Making, and the risk of this power being misused. [Indeed, the power is fully arbitrary and can easily be abused by a Govt to exempt ADM systems of their likes from legal protections]
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Spot on: a peer of the House of Lords whose name I didn't catch also point-out that machines don't mind explaining the reason they're taking a decision, while requring over-worked individuals who have other concerns in their lives to activate themselves to do so is not a smart way of using new technologies.
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Lord Holms also supports these amendments, points out these amendments were presented and supported by Baroness Jones (LAB) when in opposition, makes a joke about this being her chirstmas ghost as now, in Govt, she does the opposite and opposes these amendments instead
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
[To me, this looks like a very English-indirect way of saying that maybe the Labour Govt is proving to be rather hypocrytical with the DUA Bill, but I won't make any conclusions here]
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Anyway, Lord Holmes also vocally supports amendments that would ensure individuals receive a personalised explanation when subject to Automated Decision-Making
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
To which I must make a clarification: the GDPR already provides for such right, the problem being that it is being under-enforced by the ICO. Clearer language isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the solution rests on these standards being enforced
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
I also missed his name, one of the peers attending the debate intervenes to support amendments that would introduce new requirements for ADM and algorithmic impact assessments in the field of employement, pointing out the importance of ensuring innovation benefits workers rather than affecting their livelihoods
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Baroness Kidron also intervenes to support amendments to ensure human review must be meaningful [again, this is something the law already requires but the ICO does not enforce. Clarity in legislation doesn't hurt, but the problem rests in how the ICO is condoning companies trying to get around legal requirements].
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Baroness Kidron also raises again the question of “who is this Bill for” and who benefits, pointing out how several charities from different sectors are all concerned about the impact of the changes introduced by the DUA Bill
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Finally, Baroness Kidron comes back to the issue of children protection, and the impact that watering down Article 22 would have on them
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Further voices of concern from the Lords: the Labour Govt has no reason whatsoever to roll back vital protections which are becoming so more important in view of AI developments
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
The Lords also raise concerns about the dangers of NHS patients being denied treatment because of an automated decision without human review or meaningful explanation
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Lord Camrose (CON) presents an amendment of his own, that would require organisations on ADM systems to comply with a number of principles. To me, they seem to align with those listed in the (Conservative) Govt AI Whitepaper https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-regulation-a-pro-innovation-approach/white-paper
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Camrose also pushes back against the idea of waiting for Labour's AI Bill before intervening, pointing out that this Bill is expected to be much narrower in scope than the GDPR
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Also glad to hear that Camrose finally sides against provisions the Labour Govt is presenting, and that the Conservative Govt first presented in the DPDI Bill, that would allow the Secretary of State to designate ADM systems that are not to be considered ADM systems
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
However, Camrose speaks against amendments that would expand the scope of Article 22 beyond solely automated-decisions. Important context: the recommendation to expand the scope to partly automated decisions was made by the ICO in their response to the Conservative consultation, before John Edwards kicked in https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultation-responses/4018588/dcms-consultation-response-20211006.pdf
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Baroness Jones (LAB) answers according to the same script she read when she met with civil society organisations during a Ministerial roundtable. She of course focuses on some changes to the wording of Article 22 introduced by the DUA Bill and forgets the elephant in the room, i.e. the provisions that would remove Article 22 in most circumstances, i.e. unless sensitive data are involved in the decision
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Baroness Jones (LAB) also opposes changes that would extend Article 22 to predominantly automated decisions. She continues by vaguely pushing back against the amendments being presented, also in regard to children
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Baroness Jones (LAB) also defends Govt plans to introduce a power for the Secretary of State to exempt ADM systems from ADM provisions. Her rationale, that these determination would be reviewed by Parliament, forgets to mentions that the UK Parliament has not rejected a single Statutory Intrument since the mid 1970s. In other words, this is not a safeguard, and Baroness Jones ought to know about it
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Baroness Jones (LAB) keeps her vague but diligent rebuttal of every amendment that was presented. Taking a step away from the debate, the Labour Govt position on this issue looks very, very odd: they are obviously uncomfortable with defending or even acknowledging that they are proposing to remove Article 22 rights in most circumstances. These amendments also exposed what could be called hypocristy: as the Labour Govt has presented these changes as “clarifications” about the meaning of the law, it is now rather odd to see Maggie Jones (LAB) rejecting every single amendment that would clarify the meaning of the law but without restricting such right instead.
