Data Protection Bill
The Data Protection Bill is passing through the House of Lords. Clause 15 if so significant concern, giving Ministers the ability to carve a hole in the Data Protection Act at will – something this Government claimed it wouldn’t do, as it was key safeguard in the Digital Economy Act earlier this year. As written, it is a dramatic change from the data protection status quo, and gives the Government broad powers to exempt itself from the rule of law.
We have a briefing on the Bill for Second Reading in the Lords.
As the NHS moves towards transparency over medical records, the very information provided via transparency must be subject to the same protections against enforced SAR as the records themselves. It’s unclear whether clause 172(1) does this sufficiently.
Implementing the Digital Economy Act: “Better Use of Data”
To plagiarise Baroness O’Neill, whose approach is very relevant here: better than what?
The Cabinet Office are consulting on the Digital Economy Act Codes of Practice. We have a draft response to that consultation, which goes into more detail on a number of issues raised in our rest of government supplement.
As for how that will be used in practice, the Cabinet Office are having meetings about updating their “data science ethics framework”, and the ODI is seeking views on their proposed data canvas. The canvas is better, but to qualify as science, it can’t just be some greek on a whiteboard, but must include a notion of accountability for outcomes, and falsifiability of hypotheses.
Otherwise, it’s not science, it’s medieval alchemy – with similar results.
Most interestingly, it appears that despite all it’s flaws, the current “data science ethics framework” is in use by Departments, and they do find it useful for stopping projects that are egregiously terrible. So while the framework allows unlawful and unethical projects through, preventing those was not their goal – the hidden goal was to stop the worst projects where every other “safeguard” has demonstrably failed. This is a good thing; it’s just a pity that the previous team denied it existed. The honesty from the post-reset team is welcome – the previous approach included denying to our face that a meeting like this one was taking place, after someone else had already told us the date.
Part 2 to follow