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

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

Mariano delli Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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 Santi

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.

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones (LIBDEM) takes the floor, points out that concerns obviously remain after the Labour Govt response delivered by Baroness Jones. Clearly, he says, we need to discuss this further before the debate moves to Report Stage, as the debate was unsatisfactory

Mariano delli Santi

Lord Clement-Jones (LIBDEM) also speaks out in support of amendments that would extend the scope of Article 22 to “predominantly automated decisions”, rejects remarks against it by Lord Camrose (CON)

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones now introduces an amendment that would remove Clause 81. This is a provision the Labour Govt has presented that would remove the need to log access to a police database by the police. Clement-Jones puts these provisions in relation to Schedules 4 and 5, that remove safeguards over the use of data for law enforcement, national security and other public security purposes

Mariano delli Santi

The combined effect of these provisions, Clement-Jones says, is that it would allow the unaccountable use of data by the police. Instead, the public needs more, not less transparency over police use of data

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones also mentions a police review that found police officers had abused their powers to access police data in the Sara Everard case. This shows the need of more transparency, and the danger of reducing safeguards against abuse of power by police forces when accessing personal data. For context: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/police-to-get-more-data-powers-despite-sarah-everard-records-breach/

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones also criticises Clause 87, that would allow the Govt to introduce new exemptions to data protection for law enforcement purposes for national security. He points out this power is incredibly dangerous for the survival of the UK adequacy decision

Mariano delli Santi

Clement-Jones also raises the issue of Police's reliance on hyperscale cloud providers, and the impact of this on UK technological sovereignty. He summarises issues that have been thoroughly developed by Sebastian Klovig Skelton for Computer Weekly, and which I have been commenting upon quite regularly. See for instance https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366615434/Police-cloud-project-raises-data-protection-concerns-despite-legal-reforms