Catch-22. It's the best there is.
(c) Joseph Heller
The UK's National Data Guardian (NDG) has warned the government against watering down individuals' rights to challenge decisions made about them by artificial intelligence. The independent healthcare data rights watchdog also said the government's consultation on changes to data protection law following the UK's departure from …
"Maybe efficiency isn't the only metric."
True. But seeing patients more timely would be useful. Filtering A&E could be useful, although that would require GP's to see patients.
As for letting people die at birth, it would cut their source of funding considerably :D
Yes, but that requires more doctors, not just AI. The AI can't really do much about hurrying appointments, if there are no doctors available to see patients.
My mum needed a new hip, she spent 2 years on the doctor's "not a waiting list", before she landed on his waiting list for 18 months, before she could see a specialist... Because the doctor wasn't allowed to have people on the waiting list for more than 2 years.
@codejunky no contest to efficiency in health care in general, I specifically meant the named efficiency in decision making. I would consider efficient decision making regarding health care a dangerous thing even if not administered by AI.
"As elements of healthcare become more e̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ cheaply managed through AI."
I think that reads a little more accurately, caring about the human nature of the data seems to be regarded as obstructive and unimportant.
I think the present government genuinely believes that the EU care as little about the rules as they do and the worst they will suffer will be some kind of temporary performative objection that will be waived if we tell them about our lovable porcine cartoon characters.
Even if the European Commission and the EU Council and European Parliament chose to somehow all sit on their hands, there’s a *very* strong likelihood of individual citizens taking a challenge to court and an ECJ ruling eventually rendering processing of EU citizens data in the U.K. highly problematic, if not impossible.
People seem to imagine the EU operates like a US presidency or a U.K. national government with broad executive powers being exercised by a single party or individual. It does not. It’s all about decentralised powers, subsidiary, finding consensus etc.
It would be extremely naïve to assume this will just bump along as if nothing happened or that some diplomatic nods and winks by HM Gov can smooth it all over and make it go away.
GDPR is actually very popular amongst European citizens too. There’s strong political support for it and a sensitivity about data snooping in many countries that have a much clearer understanding of why it’s a risk due to their own 20 th century histories. A lot of people are very protective of the concept of a right to privacy.
The framers of the adequacy decision actually started the rot, when they set the requirement for transparency (paragraph 49) as "Data subjects should be informed of the main features of the processing of their personal data." [emphasis added]. The GDPR actually requires full and complete details of processing to be provided.
I really wish you were wrong too, and I had hoped the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to jeopardise adequacy due to the economic damage that's going to happen.
To be fair I also hoped the Government would respect the people of the UK but as with ID cards, ubiquitous surveillance, freedom of speech and several other areas, the Government prefers a more authoritarian approach that also allows businesses to run rampant over peoples' rights.
We used to be trend settings in consumer law, now we're following China's lead. It's concerning.
as with ID cards, ubiquitous surveillance, freedom of speech and several other areas, the Government prefers a more authoritarian approach
The UK is one of the few countries in Europe that doesn't have ID cards. It hasn't started planning compulsory COVID vaccination either.
The UK has many people demanding ID cards, including many senior politicians.
The UK also has "COVID passports" which are a slippery slope towards ID cards, and also towards Chinese style social scoring.
The UK does have compulsory COVID vaccination if you want certain jobs already.
We're one bad election away from full on authoritarian Government. Look how close Corbyn got!
On the other hand, why not just say, "Fuck the rules, let's all do what the hell we like, when we like, and sod the consequences!".
So, no need for a Driver's Licence, just get behind the wheel and go for it - who needs rules anyway?
Vaccinations of any kind before working with patients in a hospital? Pah, for braindead weaklings! Infect who you want; get infected by whatever happens to be passing - they die/I die, or we stagger on in broken health misery for years? Who cares, freedom man!
Gun licences, product safety regulations, professional exams - all time wasting, money leaching, establishment reinforcing nonsense!
Yeah, we're just one vote a way from a totalitarian tyranny, because the rules are there to make sure that happens.
I don't recall Corbyn calling for an end to whistle-blower protection if what's being revealed embarrasses the government, or for a ban on demonstrations that the Home Secretary deems to be annoying.
It's not Corbyn who's responsible for the cuts to the legal aid budget.
It's not Corbyn who unilaterally decided that it's possible to strip a British citizen of their nationality.
For that level of authoritarianism you need only look at the current cabinet.
Well, quite, and that's the point I've been making. Look how bad it is now, even when he didn't get in.
Unless you're in Scotland, in which case you're already in trouble. A corrupt Government imposing social credit restraints and demanding children report their parents for supposed hate speech in the home.
Things aren't good and can get much much worse, which is why vigilance and action are required. It's why I helped set up the Open Rights Group and continue to financially support it.
> UK's National Data Guardian (NDG)
Except she's not the UK National Data Guardian, she's the English National Data Guardian - she appears to have no responsibilities regarding Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales:
Obviously not, considering Shrems I and Shrems II both got the data protection treaties with the US annulled, because the US demonstrably didn't take it seriously, which is why it is very hard to balance moving to the cloud, if you are using AWS, Azure, M365, Google WS etc. because they have been declared non-GDPR compliant in many countries.
'"The consultation is largely drafted from a position where the controller becomes entitled to process the data subject's personal data without consideration of how the data subject's wishes or interests are protected."'
I came to the same conclusion. Completing a robust response to the 170 loaded questions that pointed out the inadmissibility of this position took 20 days and it finally ran to over 25,000 words. I wonder if they'll read it.
> the need "to provide human review [of AI decisions] may, in future, not be practicable or proportionate."
E.g. for trivial things like motoring offences.
So for example you wouldn't ever get a fine for being in a bus lane because the AI mistook a logo on someone's top for your reg number, no, couldn't ever happen.
Anyway HMG won't be wasting valuable AI time on things like that. It'll be used to decide if you're entitled to benefits, or asylum, or whether your tax avoidance scheme is actually a tax evasion scheme, or how much HS2 compensation for knocking your house down (or not). Don't want pesky lawyers dragging things out and costing the Government money.