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 Santi

Viscont Camrose (CON), of course, voices concerns about these changes, questioning the Tribunal ability to take sound legal decisions. He says the ICO already operates under a solid legal framework that ensures they can be held accountable against the law

Mariano delli Santi

I need to intervene here: rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. If anything, six years into the GDPR in trhe UK have told us the ICO can act against the law and get away with it, exactly because individuals cannot substantially appeal its decisions to the tribunal.

Mariano delli Santi

It is also important to mention that companies can appeal to the Information Tribunal against an ICO decision, but complainants cannot. This means that Lord Camrose is supporting a status quo that requires the less powerful to go through a costly and complicated judicial review, while allowing powerful corporation to use a free of charge and lean tribunal track. This is just absurd, and it's the reason the ICO is so keen to support corporate interests while ignoring indivual rights, despite the fact the law would require the ICO to do the opposite.

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones intervenes in support of the new redress avenue before the Information Tribunal: the existing legal framework is a mess, makes access to justice complicated and costly for common people, points out the issue of jurisdictional confusion and the impact on data subjects is not being properly addressed or considered by these remarks

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones (LIB) now presents amendments that would prevent the DUA Bill and the Labour Govt from watering down the right not to be subject to automated decision-making, one of the few existing legal safeguards against AI and life-chaning decisions taken by computers

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones lists several amendments in this regard that would remove restrictions the Labour Govt would introduce, clarify the need of having a competent person in charge of human review, clarify the need of a personalised explanation for an automated-decision etc.

Mariano delli Santi

I guess, the headline here is: the protections for Article 22 are important and need be strengthened, but the Govt is reducing them and overburdening individuals by requiring them to appeal automated decisions, rather than requiring the organisations to review them

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones: it is concerning that automated decision-making would be allowed to be taked without human oversight, in secrecy and for policing purposes

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones supports and reads out loud the letter, organised by Open Rights Group and signed by several other fellow civil society organisations, against the Labour Govt plans to restrict Article 22 of the UK GDPR https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/letter-to-peter-kyle-keep-our-right-not-to-be-subjected-to-decisions-based-solely-on-ai/

Mariano delli Santi

Lord Culross also intervenes, stresses the need to ensure transparency of Automated Decision-Making systems, points out DWP own analysis of their welfare algorithm found out it was biased. This is a reference to the issue reported by Foxglove here https://www.foxglove.org.uk/2024/02/12/dwp-boss-bias-algorithm-disabled-people/

Mariano delli Santi

Lord Culross also supports the introduction of a statutory duty to make the use of an algorithm public by Govt departements, so that people can know and possibly scuritnise their reliance and use more effectively

Mariano delli Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

[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 Santi

Anyway, Lord Holmes also vocally supports amendments that would ensure individuals receive a personalised explanation when subject to Automated Decision-Making

Mariano delli Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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