Author: info@amberhawk.com

Speakers at the Data Protection Forum in early March reinforced my reasoning that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill  (“DPDI Bill”) should be used as a vehicle to implement the EU’s AI Act.  [Obviously my Petition which states this should also be supported: so please sign it! – see references]. One speaker, at the end of her presentation, made several personal comments about the risks associated with the fragmentary, “wait and see” approach of the UK Government towards AI

I am asking readers to sign my Petition on the Parliamentary web-site (see end of this blog); most of the blog's text explains why you should sign. In summary, the Petition states that the Government would be negligent if it failed to draft clauses for the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill  (“DPDI Bill”) to protect data subjects from the harmful impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI). I have suggested that these AI clauses should be aligned with the EU Data/IA

Text Updated 6 March 2024 Most people will agree that the promised “Brexit benefits” have yet to manifest themselves in physical form.  This is especially the case with the Data Protection and Digital Information (“DPDI”) Bill which for three years been touted by Ministers as the pre-eminent Brexit Bonus for Britain. The Bill, it is claimed, combines a high level of data protection for data subjects with easier compliance for controllers and the wider exploitation of personal data:- such data

Last week, Prime Minister asked  “how can we write laws [to regulate AI] that make sense for something we don’t yet fully understand?”.  The PM does not appreciate that his Government has already drafted a law that applies to the processing of personal data for AI purposes but which has the objective of diminishing the protection afforded to data subjects. In this blog, I show, in the context of scientific research, how the proposed DPDI No 2 Bill” (the “Bill”

I was surprised by the recent Tribunal Decision (the “Decision”) which quashed Clearview’s £7.5 million fine on the grounds the UK_GDPR did not apply.   My puzzlement has given rise to several important questions about the Decision. These questions need an urgent answer; hence this blog. Clearview is a USA company which has scraped billions of photos and personal data from the Internet and used them to sell services to law enforcement/national security agencies and similar agencies in other countries (e.g.

I have atoned for not delivering a blog for two months by reading Schedule 13 of the Data Protection and Digital Information No 2 Bill (the “Bill”).  As readers know, the Information Commissioner (ICO) is to be replaced by an Information Commission, and Schedule 13 outlines the procedural arrangements for the operation of the Commission. Schedule 13 is not “a gripping read”.  With all its provisions about voting, quorums, Committees, Board Members, Chairs and Chief Executives, the text can be described in two words:

Last week, the Prime Minister was quoted concerning the need to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI)  is “introduced safely and securely with guard-rails in place”.  Strange to find that he appears to be unaware that several of these urgently needed guard-rails are being dismantled by the DPDI No.2 Bill (the “Bill”). On June 6th, I delivered a presentation to the Data Protection Forum where there was lively discussion concerning the weakening of data protection within several identified issues of the Bill.