The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) recently published a consultation paper requesting submissions from stakeholders working with, or interested in, cryptoassets, distributed ledger technology (DLT) and smart contracts. Submissions will inform a legal statement by UKJT which will aim to settle questions on the legal status of cryptoassets and smart contracts. UKJT is drawn from industry,
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has recently published recommendations for improving compliance with human rights regulations by parties developing, deploying or implementing artificial intelligence (AI).
The recommendations are addressed to Member States. The principles concern stakeholders who significantly influence the development and implementation of an AI system.
The Commissioner has focussed on 10 key areas of action:
- Human rights impact assessment (HRIA) – Member States should establish a legal framework for carrying out HRIAs. HRIAs should be implemented in a similar way to other impact assessments, such as data protection impact assessments under GDPR. HRIAs should review AI systems in order to discover, measure and/or map human rights impacts and risks. Public bodies should not procure AI systems from providers that do not facilitate the carrying out of or publication of HRIAs.
- Member States public consultations – Member States should allow for public consultations at various stages of engaging with an AI system, and at a minimum at the procurement and HRIA stages. Such consultations would require the publication of key details of AI systems, including details of the operation, function and potential or measured impacts of the AI system.
- Human rights standards in the private sector – Member States should clearly set out the expectation that all AI actors should “know and show” their compliance with human rights principles. This includes participating in transparent human rights due diligence processes that may identify the human rights risks of their AI systems.
- Information and transparency – Individuals subject to decision making by AI systems should be notified of this and have the option of recourse to a professional without delay. No AI system should be so complex that it does not allow for human review and scrutiny.
- Independent oversight – Member States should establish a legislative framework for independent and effective oversight over the human rights compliance of AI systems. Independent bodies should investigate compliance, handle complaints from affected individuals and carry out periodic reviews of the development of AI system capabilities.
Continue Reading Council of Europe publish recommendations for the regulation of AI to protect human rights
The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) is inviting submissions to help inform its review of online targeting and bias in algorithmic decision making.
Online targeting refers to providing individuals with relevant and engaging content, products, and services. Typically users experience targeting in the form of online advertising or personalised social media…
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has published a report (Report) assessing the implementation and enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). The Report focusses on how the cooperation and consistency mechanisms are being used by EU supervisory authorities (SAs).
Where cases involve cross-border processing, SAs cooperate through:
- Mutual assistance;
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is inviting organisations to help develop a framework for future auditing of artificial intelligence (AI).
A team from the ICO’s Technology Policy and Innovation Directorate will develop the framework. The framework is intended to help regulators ensure AI applications are transparent, fair and appropriately risk assessed.
As well as the invitation, the ICO has established a blog site where it will provide updates on its thinking about development of the framework.
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published an opinion (Opinion) on the interplay between the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679). The Opinion responds to questions submitted by the Belgian data protection authority, specifically:
- whether data protection authorities (DPAs) are competent to regulate processing that triggers both GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive;
- whether DPAs should take the ePrivacy Directive (and/or its national implementing legislation) into account when exercising their powers under GDPR;
- whether the cooperation and consistency mechanisms should apply to processing that triggers both GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive; and
- the extent to which processing can be governed by provisions of both the ePrivacy Directive and GDPR.
The EDPB also provided more general guidance on the interplay between the ePrivacy Directive and GDPR. This blog sets out key takeaways of the Opinion.Continue Reading e-Privacy meets GDPR – the European Data Protection Board shines some light