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.
-
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. A legislative intervention would proactively prevent corporate capture to succeed in legalising cookie paywalls in the UK, and ought to be supported
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Clement-Jones also points out that there is no timeline for the publication of the ICO findings regarding cookie paywalls. Thus, it may come too late to inform legsilative choices
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Clement-Jones now presents amendments to allow the Information Tribunal to scrutinise ICO decisions to drop complaints. He points out Killock and Veale vs. Information Commissioner as an example when the Tribunal's inability to scrutinise ICO decisions has denied justice to complainants
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
This is, indeed, a very much needed scrutiny. the ICO has, for too long, stopped taking complaints seriously, enforce the law, and ensure redress against infrigements. The existing legal framework allows to raise only formal issues in front of the Information Tribunal, thus ensuring teh ICO can evade its responsibility under the law with impunity—and this is, indeed, the reason we are in this situation today
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
Lord Holmes supports amendments that would give the Information tribunal the right to scrutinise ICO decisions. This would give a clear avenue for redress to individuals
-
Mariano delli Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 Santireplied to Mariano delli Santi last edited by
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 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]
