InfoGovANZ

Information Governance Think Tank

AI & Ethics

IAPP Global Summit 2022 Report

by

Celebrating the joy of reconnecting was the theme of the opening address by Trevor Hughes, President and CEO of IAPP.  This year’s Global Privacy Summit had over 4,000 attendees and took place over four jam-packed days in Washington DC. The Opening General Session got off to a flying start with three very different and thought-provoking key notes. Bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell highlighted the lessons to be learned from his recent book “The Bomber Mafia”. Warning against asking the wrong questions and solving the wrong problems, he noted that technology takes time to evolve and that “visionaries need help” with practical application.  Gladwell urged the audience to be humble about what technology can do and patient before deploying well-intended technological innovations with uncharted moral consequences. Professor Amy Gajda, author of “Seek and Hide”, discussed the pivotal 1928 Supreme Court case of Olmstead v. United States, in which Justice Louis Brandeis dissented […]
Member only content (join now)

NSW AI Assurance Framework

by

All NSW government agencies are required from March 2022 to use the AI Assurance Framework.  The Framework assists project teams using AI to comprehensively analyse and document their projects’ AI specific risks. It also assists teams to implement risk mitigation strategies and establish clear governance and accountability measures. Under the AI Policy and AI Assurance Framework, agencies are required to abide by the following ethical principles: Community benefit – AI should deliver the best outcome for the citizen, and key insights into decision-making. Fairness – use of AI will include safeguards to manage data bias or data quality risks. Privacy and security – AI will include the highest levels of assurance. Transparency – review mechanisms will ensure citizens can question and challenge AI-based outcomes. Accountability – decision-making remains the responsibility of organisations and individuals. View the NSW AI Assurance Framework here.
Member only content (join now)

Urgent action needed over AI risks

by

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet stressed the urgent need for a moratorium on the sale and use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems that pose a serious risk to human rights until adequate safeguards are put in place. She also called for AI applications that cannot be used in compliance with international human rights law to be banned. As part of its work on technology and human rights, the UN Human Rights Office has published a report that analyses how AI – including profiling, automated decision-making and other machine-learning technologies – affects people’s right to privacy and other rights. Read the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ statement or report.
Member only content (join now)

EU bodies call for facial recognition ban in public

by

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) have supported the call on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on the use of artificial intelligence technologies but expressed concern by the exclusion of international law enforcement cooperation from the scope of the proposal. The EDPB and EDPS go further than the  European Commission’s proposal for a regulation issued in April — urging that the planned legislation should be broader to include a ‘general ban on any use of AI for automated recognition of human features in publicly accessible spaces, such as recognition of faces, gait, fingerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and other biometric or behavioural signals, in any context.’ Read the EDPB release here and the Proposal here.
Member only content (join now)

Australians deserve tech that protects their rights

by

A new report by the Australian Human Rights Commission calls for far-reaching changes to ensure government, companies and others safeguard human rights in the design, development and use of new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI).

The Human Rights and Technology Final Report makes 38 recommendations to ensure human rights are upheld in Australia’s laws, policies, funding and education on AI.  This includes the recommendation to modernise Australia’s regulatory system to ensure AI-informed decision making is lawful, transparent, explainable, responsible and subject to appropriate human oversight, review and intervention.  Stronger laws are recommended to protect the community from misuse of facial recognition and other biometric technology.

The Report recommends the creation of a new AI Safety Commissioner to help lead Australia’s transition to an AI-powered world. It is envisaged that this new regulatory body would be a key source of expertise on AI, providing guidance to governments and the private sector, and providing independent advice to policymakers and Parliament.

You can read the Human Rights and Technology Final Report and find out more about the project at tech.humanrights.gov.au

New regulations for Artificial Intelligence in the EU

by

The European Commission has just announced a package of proposed regulations to make sure that AI systems used in the EU are safe, transparent, ethical, unbiased and under human control.  They are categorised by risk with checks imposed on any ‘high-risk’ technology and also include a ban on most surveillance including live facial scanning, as well as AI systems to filter school, job or credit scoring.  AI applications used in critical infrastructure migration and law enforcement would also be subject to strict safeguards. The proposed regulation is one of the broadest of its kind to be introduced by a Western government, and part of the EU’s expansion of its role as a global tech enforcer. Regulators could fine a company up to €30million or 6% of annual world-wide revenue for the most severe violations. Read more about the EU’s approach to AI  in Excellence and trust in artificial intelligence | European Commission (europa.eu) and New rules for […]
Member only content (join now)

Ethics & Implementing AI Responsibly – Aurelie Jacquet

by

As we put 2020 behind us and look forward to 2021, we reflected in an interactive virtual discussion forum on the key IG learnings from the past 12 months and the insights and actions we now need to be taking to make the most of the opportunities and challenges on the road to recovery in 2021. Our expert panel included InfoGovANZ International Council member Aurelie Jacquet, who works on leading global initiatives for the implementation of Responsible AI with both the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). With ISO, Aurelie is the chair of the Standards Australia committee representing Australia at the international standards on Artificial Intelligence. With the IEEE, she is an expert for the Ethics Certification Program for Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, and leads the work stream on Dignity and Agency as part of IEEE’ s Digital Inclusion, Identity, Trust, and […]
Member only content (join now)

Using artificial intelligence to make decisions: Addressing the problem of algorithmic bias

by

This technical paper is a collaborative partnership between the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gradient Institute, Consumer Policy Research Centre, CHOICE and CSIRO’s Data61. We explore how the problem of algorithmic bias can arise in decision making that uses artificial intelligence (AI). This problem can produce unfair, and potentially unlawful, decisions. We demonstrate how the risk of algorithmic bias can be identified, and steps that can be taken to address or mitigate this problem. AI is increasingly used by government and businesses to make decisions that affect people’s rights, including in the provision of goods and services, as well as other important decision making such as recruitment, social security and policing. Where algorithmic bias arises in these decision-making processes, it can lead to error. Especially in high-stakes decision making, errors can cause real harm. The harm can be particularly serious if a person is unfairly disadvantaged on the basis of their […]
Member only content (join now)

AI Transparency in Digital Government Highlights

by

To celebrate Right to Know 2020, Information Governance ANZ were delighted to host a timely discussion on the right to access information and the use of algorithms in government decision-making. This interactive forum was facilitated by Susan Bennett, Founder of InfoGovANZ and our special guests included: NSW Information Commissioner – Elizabeth Tydd Victorian Information Commissioner - Sven Bluemmel Senior Research Fellow, University of Cambridge – Dr Jat Singh The increasing adoption of technology across society, including in government, requires the preservation, assurance and assertion of information access rights. The right of access to government information also extends to information held by contractors that provide services to the public on behalf of government. Applying and challenging these rights becomes more complex in the new world of automated decision-making. Legal frameworks, licensing and contracts must evolve to ensure information governance is applied to the design and use of algorithms, so that rights and […]
Member only content (join now)

Principles of Explainable AI

by

The US National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST) has released a draft paper of 4 principles of explainable AI, which is one of several properties that characterise trust in AI systems. Other properties may include resiliency, reliability, bias and accountability. Usually, these terms are defined as a part or set of principles or pillars. This draft paper sets out there are 4 principles encompassing the core concepts of explainable AI as follows:   Explanation: Systems deliver accompanying evidence or reason(s) for all outputs. Meaningful: Systems provide explanations that are understandable to individual users. Explanation Accuracy: The explanation correctly reflects the system’s process for generating the output. Knowledge Limits: The system only operates under conditions for which it was designed or when the system reaches a sufficient confidence in its output.
Member only content (join now)

AI Transparency in Digital Government

by

In celebration of International Access to Information Day and Right to Know Week in NSW 2020, we held an event on AI Transparency in Digital Government with NSW Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd, Victorian Information Commissioner Sven Bluemmel and Dr Jat Singh, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge. The discussion focused on the duty government agencies have to disclose algorithms used in providing services and making decisions about services and benefits to citizens. The Commissioners highlighted that robust procurement processes are essential where technology using algorithms are being procured by agencies. Commissioner Bluemmel said the bar needs to be set really high where the algorithmic decision-making involves people and their liberties and livelihood. Transparency is necessary to understand how the decisions are made in order to assert our rights. Dr Singh pointed out that transparency needs to be meaningful so that it allows us to be able to interrogate, scrutinize and challenge, and it requires organisations to give careful consideration […]
Member only content (join now)

EU/US data transfers under Privacy Shield invalidated

by

On 16 July 2020, the European Court of Justice invalidated its previous Decision (2016/1250) and the EU-US Privacy Shield, which enabled certified companies to transfer personal data between the EU and the US. The case was brought by Max Schrems (the founder of NYOB) an Austrian resident, who had lodged a complaint with the Irish privacy regulator that the transfer of his Facebook data from Facebook's servers in Ireland to the US did not provide sufficient protection against access by the US public authorities. The Court found that, based on the use and access by US public authorities and surveillance programmes, interfered with the fundamental right of persons whose data is transferred to the US.  However, the Court also determined that the Commission Decision 2010/87 on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries is valid. Read more Court of Justice of the […]
Member only content (join now)

EDPS Opinion on the EU Commission’s White Paper on AI – the European approach to excellence and trust

by

As a part of a wider package of strategic documents, the European Commission published a White Paper on “Artificial Intelligence: A European approach to excellence and trust”, which we brought you in our April newsletter and is available here. This Opinion presents the EDPS views on the White Paper as a whole, as well as on certain specific aspects, such as the proposed risk-based approach, the enforcement of AI regulation or the specific requirements for the remote biometric identification (including facial recognition). The EDPS recommendations in this opinion aim at clarifying and, where necessary, further developing the safeguards and controls with respect to protection of personal data.  Read the EDPS Opinion here.
Member only content (join now)

The impact of the GDPR on Automated-Decision Making

by

Addressing the relation between the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and artificial intelligence (AI) this report considers challenges and opportunities for individuals and society, and the ways in which risks can be countered and opportunities enabled through law and technology. The study led by Professor Sartor for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), within the Secretariat of the European Parliament, discusses the tensions and proximities between AI and data protection principles, such as purpose limitation and data minimisation. The report makes a thorough analysis of automated decision-making, considering the extent to which it is admissible, the safeguard measures to be adopted, and whether data subjects have a right to individual explanations. The study then considers the extent to which the GDPR provides for a preventive risk-based approach, focused on data protection by design and by default.  Read the report here.
Member only content (join now)

NZ – Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand

by

On 29 July 2020, more than New Zealand 20 Government agencies signed the Aotearoa Algorithm Charter, committing to be transparent about when they use algorithms and how those algorithms operate. This makes New Zealand the first country to develop standards governing the use of algorithms by the public sector, after Statistics Minister James Shaw made his annoucements. The charter, which has already been signed by 21 ministries and agencies, requires signatories to be transparent about when they use algorithms and how those algorithms function. “Most New Zealanders recognise the important role algorithms play in supporting government decision-making and policy delivery, however they also want to know that these systems are being used safely and responsibly. The Charter will give people that confidence,” Shaw said. The Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand is an evolving piece of work that needs to respond to emerging technologies and also be fit-for-purpose for government […]
Member only content (join now)

AI Standards: From Principles to Implementation

by

With the proliferation of AI principles worldwide1, industry is faced with a new challenge: how to implement these AI principles? Since 2017, the international committee responsible for the standardization of AI (SC 42) has been tackling this challenge: it is developing standards covering both technical and organisational specifications to enable responsible and trustworthy AI. Forty-four countries are currently involved in the work of SC 42, and Australia plays an active role in the development of the AI international standards, as it has formed standards committee IT-043 to be Australia’s voice at SC 42. When it comes to AI, it is essential to provide for interoperability and global governance, and this is why AI international standards have the buy in from key governments (such as China, the US and the EU). Australia has also identified AI standards as an important national priority. In March this year, Standards Australia released its Artificial […]
Member only content (join now)

UK – AI and its impact on Public Standards

by

On 10 February 2020, the UK’s Committee on Standards in Public Life published its report on AI and its impact on Public Standards to ensure that high standards of conduct are upheld as technologically assisted decision making is adopted more widely across the public sector. The report makes clears that on issues of transparency and data bias in particular, there is an urgent need for guidance and regulation. The report also emphasises that public bodies must comply with the law surrounding data-drive technology and implement clear, risk-based governance for their use of AI.  
Member only content (join now)

US  – Draft Guidance for AI regulation

by

On 7 January 2020 the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a draft Guidance for Regulation of AI for Federal Agencies to consider for the use of AI including: public trust, public participation, fairness, scientific integrity, risk assessment, benefits and costs, flexibility, fairness, transparency, safety and security, and interagency co-ordination. In contrast to the position taken by the Europeans, the US government position is that it does want AI to be highly regulated, with the OSTP draft Guidance stating, ‘Federal agencies must avoid regulatory or non-regulatory actions that needlessly hamper AI innovation and growth’. On 24 February 2020, the Department of Defense adopted 5 Principles for AI: Responsible, Equitable, Traceable, Reliable and Governable. Secretary Esper stated, ‘AI technology will change much about the battlefield of the future, but nothing will change America’s steadfast commitment to responsible and lawful behaviour’.
Member only content (join now)

Singapore  – Model AI Governance Framework

by

The Singaporean Privacy Data Protection Commission (PDPC) released the second edition of the Model AI Governance Framework in January 2020. The Guiding Principles includes that decisions made by AI should be explainable, transparent and fair and that AI systems should be human-centric. Along with the framework is a Compendium of Use Cases, demonstrating how local and international organisations, across different sectors and sizes, implemented or aligned their AI governance practices with all sections of the Model Framework. There is also an Implementation and Self-Assessment Guide for Organisations (ISAGO), which is a collaboration with the World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Member only content (join now)

Automated Speech Recognition

by

While Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) technology has been present in various forms for decades, advances in statistical modelling, artificial intelligence (AI) and automation connectively have resulted in a new frontier for speech-based interaction between humans and computer systems. In this article Dr Peter Chapman, Director in the KPMG Forensic Technology team and InfoGovANZ advisory board member, details some of the current applications of ASR technology and offers guidance on a number of emerging governance issues associated with these technologies. As a concept, computerised Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) has been around almost as long as the computer itself. However, only in the last decade have the capabilities of ASR technology reached the point where wide-scale commercial adoption is viable1. Natural human speech contains slang terms, dialect peculiarities, abbreviations and other “non-standardised” content. While humans are very adept at managing these issues, the enormous variability of human speech makes ASR a very […]
Member only content (join now)