Hello hello again.

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Hello hello again. Today at 3h45pm, the House of Lords will host another debate about the Data Access and Use Bill, the infamous UK data protection reform. You can tune in for the debate at this address, or follow this thread for my usual comments https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4419c7c3-e181-4ceb-805f-4eb6d89f7743

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Some backgound: The Data Access and Use Bill is the latest iteration of the dreadful UK data protection reform, an ill-conceived attempt to protect commercial interests of data hoarders and spyware companies at the expenses of your rights not to be discriminated against, not to be misrepresented, and not to be treated unfairly on the basis of “our data says that”...

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

The good news is, the Labour Government has significantly reduced the extent of the damage of the DUA Bill. The bad news is, the Labour Government are still pressing ahead with this technolunatic post-brexit data reform agenda. My latest briefing covers what this Bill is (and is not anymore) about https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/briefing-data-use-and-access-bill-hl/

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Today the debate should include the Information Commissioner's Office, the UK potemkin data protection regulator, the proposals to reform it included in the DUA Bill, and the Lords' amendments to this effect.

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

As I have been long denouncing during my work at ORG, the ICO isn't working, but is the UK Parliament going to fix it? https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/briefing-the-ico-isnt-working/

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

To this end, ORG worked together with the Lords to develop some amendments that would, among other things, transfer responsibility for appointment and budget from the Govt to the relevant select committee, and clarify that the main responsibility of the UK data protection authority is to... well, protect data and enforce data protection. You can find a full list of the amendments we have formally endorsed here https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/dua-bill-org-statements-of-support-and-rationale/

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

During the last session, the Lords also covered some amendments, that ORG supports, that would ensure complainants have a clear avenue for redress against ICO decisions to drop complaints. You can find my commentary of that debate from this post onward https://mastodon.bida.im/@marianods/113663696945569928

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Curious about how long will it take for Labour and Conservative peers to get me upset? Tune in at 3h45pm for the DUA Bill debate and let's find out!

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Clement-Jones (LIBDEM) opens the dances with an amendment that would require the ICO to produce a code of practice regarding the protection of personal data of children in the sector of education and edtech

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Today, Clement-Jones argues, families are finding it difficult to access data about their children and know how this data is being used. A code is needed to reduce power imbalances and clarify legal obligations for parents, childrens and edtech providers

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

There is also the need, argues Clement-Jones, to empower children to participate and to be able to exercise their own choices, in line with their maturity and personal development.

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Clement-Jones also draws the attention on reliance by the edtech sector of “public interest” legal bases, and explains that clarity is needed as to what data processing can be justified on these basis. Defend Digital me is also mentioned as one of the organisations supporting the Lords with their briefings

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Baroness Kidron also intervenes, stating that the Departement for Education and the Information Commissioner's Office have continually failed to confront ongoing breaches of data protection law in the education sector

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

A key aspect of the Code, Baroness Kidron explains, should be to transfer compliance responsibilities from educational providers to edtech providers. [I guess Baroness Kidron must be talking about tech companies falsely classifying their customers as controllers to avoid legal liability, and unfortunately too common trick in the tech sector]

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Baroness Kidron also complains about the growing use of biometric monitoring (such as live facial recognition) in schools: a Code could bring clarity of what are the circumstances where this can be used, and how consent can be validly collected and given in such context

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Baroness Kidron also touches upon the issue of reuse of pupils data for reserach purposes, arguing that a Code could help draw useful lines that separate legitimate research activities from commercial and predatory behaviours by edtech companies

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

Another Lord intervenes, ominously declares various interests in an AI and edtech company, starts listing the benefits of edtech tools, which would make teaching and assessments cheaper, easier and liberates teachers' time.

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

However, he does admit there are dystopian cases, such as digital divide or the possibility of a two-tier system where poor children are tought by AI and richer children by humans. He warns against the risk of covert privatisation of the educational sector, driven by the adoption of AI companies' products

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

These systems need data and a variety of data in order to work, he says. However, he recognises that valid concerns about data uses exists, and so he supports a code of practice for the edtech sector to address these issues

[marianods@mastodon.bida.im]

The Lord also invites the Lords to involve the Departement for Education on these issues. Finally, he raises the issue of childrens' data being shared with DWP to check entitlement to benefits