UK government backs away from proposals to remove individuals' rights to challenge AI decision making
- Reference: 1642592885
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/01/19/uk_government_back_away_from/
- Source link:
In its response to the consultation "Data: A new direction", which set out proposals for changing UK data protection law following the nation's departure from the European Union, the government would look to the "efficacy of safeguards" with respect to automated decision-making about people, rather than the removal of safeguards, Harry Lee, deputy director, data protection and data rights, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport told a conference yesterday.
In September 2021, the government published a consultation that suggested it could water down individuals' rights to challenge decisions made about them by AI.
[1]
The [2]DCMS paper said that the need "to provide human review [of AI decisions] may, in future, not be practicable or proportionate."
[3]
[4]
In the UK's current implementation of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (via the Data Protection Act 2018), people have a right to not be subject to a solely automated decision-making process with significant effects.
The government's consultation followed a recommendation from the much-derided Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform ( [5]TIGRR ) that Article 22 of UK Data Protection Act 2018 – which outlines subjects' rights to challenge automated decisions – should be removed, and was greeted with outrage from campaign groups.
[6]
The consultation is now closed. Speaking at [7]the Westminster eForum policy conference Data protection and the future of data regulation in the UK, Lee said there had been a lot of concern about the removal of Article 22 from the current law.
"Our focus is really to look at how to improve the efficacy of safeguards with respect to automated decision making in light of many respondents flagging shortcomings in its design. That, rather than removal, is a more fruitful area of work for us over the coming months," Lee said.
The government is also proposing changes to the governance of the data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office, in its shake-up of data protection law.
Look out for data watchdog independence
Last year, the outgoing Information Commissioner [8]warned about the office's future independence in light of the proposals, saying the ICO needed to "be able to hold government to account" with a governance model that "preserves its independence."
Also speaking at the Westminster eForum conference yesterday, Louise Byers, director of planning risk and governance at the ICO, offered specific tests for the future independence of the office.
[9]
She said the ICO had in its response backed the move to a board model, with a chair and chief executive roles. However, the appointment of the CEO should be for the statutory board, not the government, as it proposes. She also warned against the government signing off codes of practice.
"We've highlighted in our response and concerns around the proposal for the Secretary of State to sign off to codes of practice and complex guidance, and also for the Secretary of State to make the appointment of the CEO role to the board, which is something we believe should be a role for the new secretary board," she said.
"We believe it's vital that whatever reforms are put in place, they maintain both the practicalities and perception of the independence of the ICO to allow us to continue to hold government and public sector to account," Byers added.
[10]At 9 for every 100 workers, robots are rife in Singapore – so we decided to visit them
[11]Road to nowhere: UK plans for an 'AI assurance industry' but destination is unclear
[12]UK data guardian challenges government proposals on automated decision-making
[13]UK aims for 'openness and fairness' in its AI Strategy – unless we're talking about favoured contractors
[14]Workplace surveillance booming during pandemic, destroying trust in employers
She said the independence of the ICO was vital to [15]the adequacy decision which currently allows data sharing with the EU, and similar decisions which might allow data sharing in other jurisdictions.
The DCMS's Lee said the ICO's role as an independent regulator was "important to creating and maintaining trust" with the public.
"I can understand why, in some instances, there are concerns about the impact [of the proposals] on the ICO's independence and we're going to look at those closely," he said.
Lee offered no specific assurances that the government would not get involved in choosing the ICO's CEO or signing off codes of practice and guidance. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YehDuXnzoRyulS3nJLbFPwAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/10/right_to_contest_automated_ai_uk_consult/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YehDuXnzoRyulS3nJLbFPwAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YehDuXnzoRyulS3nJLbFPwAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/17/post_brexit_laws_mps_wishlist/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YehDuXnzoRyulS3nJLbFPwAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/07/outgoing_ico_warns_independence_of_role/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YehDuXnzoRyulS3nJLbFPwAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/05/singapore_robot_holiday/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/09/uk_roadmap_for_ai_assurance/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/23/uk_automated_decision_making/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/11/uk_open_and_fair_ai_strategy/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/12/workplace_monitoring_report/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/22/uk_eu_data_sharing_adequacy/
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
I like the attempt to solve the problem in the title 'Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform '... it's innovation and growth baby only a fool would say no :-)
The same taxonomic tree as "Service Improvement".
Just another nail?
Seems like this government would like to remove the powers from anything that has the ability to challenge them or find against them (ICO, courts, ...)
Added: Whilst at the same time selectively "dis-applying" laws that they themselves have introduced (I'm looking at you, Boris).
Re: Just another nail?
" government would like to remove the powers from anything that has the ability to challenge them "
The government has freedoms in any case that exceed those of commerce.
In actuality, the 'liberalisation' measures proposed in the consultation were primarily driven by pressure from businesses that find the current regime limits their ability to exploit personal data lawfully, or that find genuine compliance arduous. The sad reality is that practically no business has to date ever been compliant with the legislation.
Rather like the attitude to speeding on the roads, the idea was to relax the law to accommodate the non-compliance. Pretty much the entire consultation was couched in terms of benefits to and convenience of data controllers and processors, not protection of data subjects.
And unfortunately, despite this retrenchment, there are lot of other nasties among the proposals that may still slip through into amended legislation.
How to legaly discriminate
> Article 22 of UK Data Protection Act 2018 – which outlines subjects' rights to challenge automated decisions – should be removed
...Which would make arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory decisions perfectly legal and binding. All any entity who doesn't like some specific skin color/sexual orientation/religion has to do, is use some simple screening software automatically and irrevocably rejecting those candidates: Sorry, computer says no.
Re: How to legaly discriminate
And numerous documented cases to date of facial recognition software discriminating against non-whites.
Re: How to legaly discriminate
> documented cases to date of facial recognition software discriminating
Obviously, they all carry the biases of their training datasets: Train them with predominately male WASPs and they won't be able to process (let's say) a Polynesian female, simply because they haven't ever seen such a person ever before.
This problem won't change anytime soon, because changing it would cost too much money and management doesn't see why they should spend it, just for some abstract notion of ethics. Not when we're speaking quarter results and bonuses here. So biases are and are bound to remain the cornerstone of AIs worldwide.
Re: How to legaly discriminate
No it's perfectly fair.
We fed the AI totally unbiased data in the form of CVs of all our previous board members - and the system calculated that we should only hire sons of former members who went to Eton and Oxford
It's totally unbiased and data driven.
could water down
ah, the usual froggie in a pot, exactly like what's happening with right to protest. Two steps forward, one step back, but WE WILL GET THERE IN THE END and you plebs can do f... about it.
"to provide human review [of AI decisions] ... not be practicable or proportionate."
Then don't use AI to make the decisions. Problem solved.
Re: "to provide human review [of AI decisions] ... not be practicable or proportionate."
I can understand and accept that it might not be possible to understand how AI comes to a particular decision, however, all decisions have to be rational and within the law and terms of contract. If a human cannot reasonably review the input evidence and path to acceptable outcome then something very bad is being hidden in the complexity.
Re: "to provide human review [of AI decisions] ... not be practicable or proportionate."
Technically, I don't see AI being used to make any decisions, it's just statistics under the hood.
Unless one means Artificial Idiocy.
Re: "Artificial Idiocy"
There's enough Real Idiocy being demonstrated by those "in power" - we definitely don't need to add any of the Artificial variety into the mix as well!
But, but...
But, but removing those pesky protections was openly advertised as a "benefit" of Brexit! So why are these horrible ICO people and their cronies standing against the Will Of The People?
Well thank goodness that this decision was made by humans and not AI.
Or was it? Hmm....