back to article UK government backs away from proposals to remove individuals' rights to challenge AI decision making

The UK government is backing away from proposals to remove individuals' rights to challenge decisions made about them by artificial intelligence following an early analysis of its consultation process. In its response to the consultation "Data: A new direction", which set out proposals for changing UK data protection law …

  1. TRT Silver badge

    Well thank goodness that this decision was made by humans and not AI.

    Or was it? Hmm....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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 :-)

      1. TRT Silver badge

        The same taxonomic tree as "Service Improvement".

  2. Mishak Silver badge

    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).

    1. Mike 137 Silver badge

      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.

  3. ThatOne Silver badge
    Facepalm

    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.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: How to legaly discriminate

      And numerous documented cases to date of facial recognition software discriminating against non-whites.

      1. ThatOne Silver badge
        Unhappy

        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.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          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.

      2. Dante Alighieri Bronze badge
        Coat

        Huskies

        any picture includingsnow

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  5. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Terminator

    "to provide human review [of AI decisions] ... not be practicable or proportionate."

    Then don't use AI to make the decisions. Problem solved.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      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.

    2. Dr Scrum Master

      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.

      1. DJV Silver badge

        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!

    3. Mark 65 Silver badge

      Re: "to provide human review [of AI decisions] ... not be practicable or proportionate."

      Where I see the value in AI is to perform preliminary categorisation. In anything where there is a high workload for individuals - think some poor schmuck processing hundreds of forms a day - initial categorisation or second opinion (either AI checks user or user checks AI) can add value. You could have AI (or more just heuristic questioning) help in triage to prevent options being missed. AI replaces user is stupid though.

    4. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      Re: "to provide human review [of AI decisions] ... not be practicable or proportionate."

      Use AI as an initial filter, but any "no" generated in cases with any legal or financial implications must be reviewed by a competent human. Not a bottom-of-the-ladder wage slave. Someone proven qualified to understand and evaluate all the issues at hand.

      With personal liabilities for anyone giving a fraudulent, biased, or inexplainable "no" following the review. It's too easy to fuck someone's life up with no comeback for a bad decision.

  6. batfink Silver badge

    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?

    1. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: But, but...

      Could you perhaps provide a reference to this advertising? I don't recall any promises about removing data protections.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: But, but...

        They called it “red tape”. All the red wallers could almost understand.

  7. Falmari Silver badge
    Megaphone

    Right to challenge decisions

    We should have the right to challenge decisions “which have a legal or similarly significant effect”* on us, no matter who or what made it.

    All the examples in the link “Article 22” could be done in the same way solely by a human meaning the human is not really deciding. Therefore we should always have the right to challenge decisions which have a legal or similarly significant effect”* on us.

    *From article link “Article 22”.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Right to challenge decisions

      Where a human makes a decision there is the ultimate resort of asking how the decision was made. In the case of "computer says no" that does not exist if the program does not have a means of explaining and justifying the decision.

  8. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    We are working towards “Brazil”+”Idiocracy”.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022