[amatix]

And at the same time, the UK government is looking at reversing the GDPR review right for automated decisions:

Article 22 guarantees that people can seek a human review of an algorithmic decision, such as an online decision to award a loan, or a recruitment aptitude test that uses algorithms to automatically filter candidates.

In May, a government task force set up to look for deregulatory dividends from Brexit, led by the leading Brexiter Iain Duncan Smith, argued that Article 22 should be removed because it made it “burdensome, costly and impractical” for organisations to use AI to automate routine processes.

The idea is part of broad-based plans for a big overhaul of the UK data regime after Brexit which ministers say will boost innovation, and deliver what Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, has called a “data dividend” for the UK economy.

https://www.ft.com/content/519832b6-e22d-40bf-9971-1af3d3745...

(Edit: formatting/link)

[flipbrad]

I advise companies on GDPR compliance, and art 22 is usually the least of their concerns. Why not offer a right to human review, if your algorithm is producing "legal or similarly significant effects"? If you're not 100% convinced in the accuracy and fairness of your automated system (two entirely separate GDPR rules), you can avoid issues down the line by offering individuals the ability to flag a dodgy decision and have a human look into it.

[te_chris]

These people are such chumps. Automated hellscape for thee, but not for me.

[andrepd]

Oh they are not chumps. They know exactly what they're doing.

[tomp]

Is this another one of those GDPR articles that has no teeth? I cannot imagine how Google can keep running it’s spam filters, Facebook it’s automated bans, and Twitter its algorithmic feed, while abiding by this.

[londons_explore]

Presumably it means a spammer can send a spam email, and then when it goes into the spam folder, has the right to ask google to review that decision.

Sounds fair enough, especially if the spammer either has to pay the costs of the review (ie. a few dollars), or is limited to being only allowed one review per month/year to prevent abuse.