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

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

Mariano delli Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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