2023 so far has been all about the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). Alongside the privacy issues, there have been concerns over the potential risks, including its threat to jobs and the spreading of misinformation and bias. AI could replace the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs, a report by investment bank Goldman Sachs says. It could replace a quarter of work tasks in the US and Europe but may also mean new jobs and a productivity boom.
Our director, Ibrahim Hasan, recently gave his thoughts on AI machine learning and ChatGPT to BBC News Arabic. You can watch here. If you just want to hear Ibrahim “speak in Arabic” skip the video to 2min 48 secs.
Friends in the UAE, may be interested in our UAE privacy programme which includes courses on UAE and Middle East data protection laws.
We have run many in-house courses, gap analysis and audit services for clients in the Middle East including the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. If you are interested in any of these services, please contact us here.
Our forthcoming AI and Machine Learning workshop will explore the common challenges that this subject presents focussing on GDPR as well as other information governance and records management issues.
Last week, a government minister called the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) a “truly malign piece of legislation”. Lord Callanan, a minister at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, made the comments during a parliamentary debate. He was defending the government’s decision that FOI should not apply to a new Defence research agency.
It is not surprising that a government minister has expressed his dislike of FOI. The Act is very popular amongst politicians but only when they are in opposition. This view rapidly changes when they take up government positions and are on the receiving end of FOI requests. Tony Blair introduced the Act but regretted it in his memoirs, calling himself “a naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop”.
This new attack on FOI is not just about the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) and whether it should be subject to FOI. This a minister expressing his frustrations about legislation which has no doubt made the Government’s life more difficult especially during the Pandemic. Information requests have been made about key government decisions, the actions of advisers in allegedly breaking lockdown rules (Barnard Castle) and the award of lucrative PPE supplies contracts to companies who seemingly have little experience of the health sector. In July, the Information Commissioner launched an investigation into reports that ministers and senior officials have been using private correspondence channels, such as Whatsapp and private email accounts, to conduct sensitive official business.
FOI allows the public to see how their money is being spent. It is extraordinary that a body like ARIA, which is responsible for spending £800 million of public funds over four years, should be free from the scrutiny that applies to the whole public sector including small parish councils. ARIA will be tasked with handing out lucrative research contracts and so the public have a right to know how their money will be spent.
Lord Callanan also said that charging the public fees for requesting government information was an “excellent idea”. This idea has also been backed by the incoming Information Commissioner, John Edwards. He told a committee of MPs in September that it was “legitimate” to ask the public to meet the cost of digging out the relevant information.
One of the governments arguments for introducing fees is that it costs money to deal with complex freedom of information request. However the current legislation already allows for fees to be charged if a request takes more than 18 hours to deal with or 24 hours if made to a government department.
Introducing a flat fee or fees for all requests, will undermine the public’s trust in government. At a time when the economy is weak and the cost of living is going up, why should the public have to pay for information that has been gathered by public bodies using public funds? In a sense they would be asked to pay for it twice. Fees also mean that only the rich would be able to scrutinise and challenge decisions made by public bodies which affect their lives.
It could be that Lord Callanan’s comments signal the start of a government attempt to weaken FOI. If this is the case, bearing in mind Boris Johnson’s parliamentary majority, we should all be concerned. The Government must lead by example and not weaken FOI because it is a hindrance.
Watch Ibrahim Hasan’s interview with RT News here.
On Tuesday there was an interesting story in the media about a group of footballers threatening legal action and seeking compensation for the trade in their personal data.
The use of data is widespread in every sport. It is not just used by clubs to manage player performance but by others such as betting companies to help them set match odds. Some of the information may be sold by clubs whilst other information may be collected by companies using public sources including the media.
Do footballers have rights in relation to this data? Can they use the GDPR to seek compensation for the use of their data?
On Tuesday, Ibrahim Hasan gave an interview to BBC Radio 4’s (PM programme) about this story. You can listen below:
Data Protection law is about protecting peoples’ human rights. When organisations fail to comply, it can have a big impact on peoples’ lives. I was proud to work with the BBC on a recent story which highlights the importance of protecting the personal data of some of the most vulnerable in society.
Thanks to tenacious journalism by Ben Moore and Tobey Wadey, piles of patient data which were left unsecured in an abandoned care home, more than four years after it was shut down, were finally removed. It included care plans, bank details and photos of injuries we well as information about relatives. The Information Commissioner is now on the case.
You can watch the BBC report, which includes an interview with me here.