AI technology urgently needs proper regulation beyond a voluntary ethics code
Lord C-J House Magazine February 2020
We already have the most comprehensive CCTV coverage in the Western world, add artificial intelligence driven live facial recognition and you have all the makings of a surveillance state, writes Lord Clement-Jones.
In recent months live facial recognition technology has been much in the news.
Despite having been described by as ‘potentially Orwellian’ by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and ‘deeply concerning’ by the Information Commissioner the Met have now announced its widespread adoption.
The Ada Lovelace Institute in Beyond Face Value reported similar concerns.
The Information Commissioner has been consistent in her call for a statutory code of practice to be in place before facial-recognition technology can be safely deployed by police forces saying; “Never before have we seen technologies with the potential for such widespread invasiveness...The absence of a statutory code that speaks to the challenges posed by LFR will increase the likelihood of legal failures and undermine public confidence.”
Met Police Officers "Did Not Act Inappropriately” At Sarah Everard Vigil, Report FindsBy Alain Tolhurst30 Mar
I and my fellow Liberal Democrats share these concerns. We already have the most comprehensive CCTV coverage in the western world. Add to that artificial intelligence driven live facial recognition and you have all the makings of a surveillance state.
The University of Essex in its independent report last year demonstrated the inaccuracy of the technology being used by the Met. Analysis of six trials found that the technology mistakenly identified innocent people as “wanted” in 80 per cent of cases.
Even the Home Office’s own Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group has questioned the accuracy of live facial recognition technology and noted its potential for biased outputs and biased decision-making on the part of system operators.
As a result, the Science and Technology Select Committee last year recommended an immediate moratorium on its use until concerns over the technology’s effectiveness and potential have been fully resolved.
To make matters worse in a recent parliamentary question, Baroness Williams of Trafford outlined the types of people who can be included on a watch list through this technology. They are persons wanted on warrants, individuals who are unlawfully at large, persons suspected of having committed crimes, persons who might be in need of protection, individuals whose presence at an event causes particular concern, and vulnerable persons.
It is chilling that not only is this technology in place and being used but that the government has arbitrarily already decided who it is legitimate to use the technology on.
A moratorium is therefore a vital first step. We need to put a stop to this unregulated invasion of our privacy and have a careful review.
I have now tabled a private members bill which first legislates for a moratorium and then institutes a review of the use of the technology which would have as minimum terms of reference: the equality and human rights implications of the use of automated facial recognition technology; the data protection implications of the use of that technology; the quality and accuracy of the technology; the adequacy of the regulatory framework governing how data is or would be processed and shared between entities involved in the use of facial recognition; and recommendations for addressing issues identified by the review.
At that point we can debate if or when it’s use is appropriate and whether and how to regulate its use. This might be absolute restriction or permitting certain uses where regulation to ensure privacy safeguards are in place, together with full impact assessment and audit.
The Lords AI Select Committee I chaired recommended the adoption of a set of ethics around the development of AI applications believing that in the main voluntary compliance was the way forward. But certain technologies need proper regulation now, beyond a voluntary ethics code. This is one such example and it is urgent.
Lord Clement-Jones is a Liberal Democrat Member of the House of Lords and Liberal Democract Lords Spokesperson for Digital.
No room for government complacency on artificial intelligence, says new Lords report December 2020
Friday 18 December 2020
The Government needs to better coordinate its artificial intelligence (AI) policy and the use of data and technology by national and local government.
- The increase in reliance on technology caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, has highlighted the opportunities and risks associated with the use of technology, and in particular, data. Active steps must be taken by the Government to explain to the general public the use of their personal data by AI.
- The Government must take immediate steps to appoint a Chief Data Officer, whose responsibilities should include acting as a champion for the opportunities presented by AI in the public service, and ensuring that understanding and use of AI, and the safe and principled use of public data, are embedded across the public service.
- A problem remains with the general digital skills base in the UK. Around 10 per cent of UK adults were non-internet users in 2018. The Government should takes steps to ensure that the digital skills of the UK are brought up to speed, as well as to ensure that people have the opportunity to reskill and retrain to be able to adapt to the evolving labour market caused by AI.
- AI will become embedded in everything we do. It will not necessarily make huge numbers of people redundant, but when the COVID-19 pandemic recedes and the Government has to address the economic impact of it, the nature of work will change and there will be a need for different jobs and skills. This will be complemented by opportunities for AI, and the Government and industry must be ready to ensure that retraining opportunities take account of this. In particular the AI Council should identify the industries most at risk, and the skills gaps in those industries. A specific national training scheme should be designed to support people to work alongside AI and automation, and to be able to maximise its potential.
- The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) should establish and publish national standards for the ethical development and deployment of AI. These standards should consist of two frameworks, one for the ethical development of AI, including issues of prejudice and bias, and the other for the ethical use of AI by policymakers and businesses.
- For its part, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) must develop a training course for use by regulators to give their staff a grounding in the ethical and appropriate use of public data and AI systems, and its opportunities and risks. Such training should be prepared with input from the CDEI, the Government’s Office for AI and Alan Turing Institute.
- The Autonomy Development Centre will be inhibited by the failure to align the UK’s definition of autonomous weapons with international partners: doing so must be a first priority for the Centre once established.
- The UK remains an attractive place to learn, develop, and deploy AI. The Government must ensure that changes to the immigration rules must promote rather than obstruct the study, research and development of AI.
There is also now a clear consensus that ethical AI is the only sustainable way forward. The time has come for the Government to move from deciding what the ethics are, to how to instil them in the development and deployment of AI systems.
These are the main conclusions of the House of Lords Liaison Committee’s report, AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency, published today, 18 December.
This report examines the progress made by the Government in the implementation of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence in its 2018 report AI in the UK: ready, willing and able?
Lord Clement-Jones, who was Chair of the Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, said:
“The Government has done well to establish a range of bodies to advise it on AI over the long term. However, we caution against complacency. There must be more and better coordination, and it must start at the top.
“A Cabinet Committee must be created whose first task should be to commission and approve a five-year strategy for AI. The strategy should prepare society to take advantage of AI rather than be taken advantage of by it.
“The Government must lead the way on making ethical AI a reality. To not do so would be to waste the progress it has made to date, and to squander the opportunities AI presents for everyone in the UK.”
Other findings and conclusions include:
Institute for Ethical AI in Education publishes new guidance for procuring AI teaching tools
The culmination of two years work by the Institute .
Lord Tim Clement-Jones, chair of IEAIED and former chair of the House of Lords Select Committee on AI, warned that the unethical use of AI in education could “hamper innovation” by driving a ‘better safe than sorry’ mindset across the sector. “The Ethical Framework for AI in Education overcomes this fundamental risk. It’s now time to innovate”
UK Music Host Expert Panel on the Talent Pipeline at Lib Dem Conference
The panel, which was chaired by UK Music CEO Michael Dugher, took place at the Metropole Hotel on Monday lunchtime. Read more
ORBIT Conference 2018 – Building In The Good: Creating Positive ICT Futures
The pervasive nature of information and communications technologies (ICT) in all aspects of our lives raises many exciting possibilities but also numerous concerns. Responsible Research and Innovation aims to maximise the benefits of technology whilst minimising the risks.Read more
CXO Talk 2018 - Public Policy: AI Risks and Opportunities
The power of artificial intelligence creates opportunities and risks that public policy must eventually address. Industry analyst and CXOTalk host, Michael Krigsman, speaks with two experts to explore the UK Parliament's House of Lords AI report.Read more
Lord C-J launches Select Committee report on AI :"We Need an Ethical Framework"
Barely a day goes by without a piece in the media on a new aspect of AI or Robotics, including in today's Gulf Today I see. Some pessimistic others optimistic.Read more
A heartfelt celebration of the Life of Jonny Walker Campaigner Extraordinaire
At a wonderful jam packed service in Leeds Minister we celebrated the life and personality of Jonny Walker. This was my tribute.
Jonny was a man with a mission.
With his Keep Streets Live Campaign he was one the most determined, articulate and effective campaigners for a cause I have ever encountered. I first met him at a meeting of the London Busking Taskforce set up by the London Mayor’s Office to ensure that voluntary solutions to any busking issues were found rather than resorting to heavy handed bureaucracy.
Ironically as we met in City Hall a band of young musicians was being arrested for busking in Leicester Square.
I then hosted another meeting of the group at the House of Lords. Our work resulted in the launch of Busk in London and a new voluntary code of busking conduct across the city.
We were all veterans in one way or another of live music campaigns but Jonny was exceptional. Jonny was a active busker the length and breadth of the country and had experienced for himself the attempts by local authorities to restrict what they saw as a social nuisance but which he and we saw as an attempt to stifle street musicians and freedom of expression.
He had already shown how voluntary agreements on busking could work and had persuaded Liverpool and York councils to adopt a voluntary code of practice.
As a demonstration of his dislike for compulsory restrictions he took Camden Council to court for adopting an onerous busking licensing scheme under the London Local Authorities Act.
"What made Jonny so special was his mischievous sense of humour allied to his deep understanding of the legal issues involved."
— Tim Clement-Jones
What made Jonny so special was his mischievous sense of humour allied to his deep understanding of the legal issues involved.
A great example was when he and fellow buskers launched “The Church of the Holy Kazoo” religious group in Camden because the licensing scheme introduced by the Council didn’t apply to religious groups who wanted to perform. So Jonny and his colleagues created a new religious group to get round the restrictions and illustrate the futility of this new licensing regime.
In the same vein he was a great exponent of using YouTube to embarrass officials over using unjustified powers. Many of us saw his Romford Youtube video and were shocked by how far we had come in limiting freedom of expression in British towns.
He will be mourned in Leeds and Norwich too where he was active. But his influence went much wider . He highlighted busking issues in Newcastle, Bournemouth, Doncaster, Havering, Ha Indy, Canterbury, Swindon, Birmingham, Oxford, Chester Exeter, Gravesham and Bath all the time campaigning against restrictions, some petty, some major, all designed to erode traditional freedoms through instruments such the new Public Space Protection Orders.
At the end of last year we heard that because of the efforts of Jonny and our campaign we have succeeded in changing official guidance to ensure that it is much more difficult to ban busking through these orders.
In their obituaries, so many of our local newspapers saw him as part of their local culture. They claimed him as their own. Every major city and town across the country will miss him. Who will fight the bureaucrats and push back against the gradgrinds now?
Jonny was a bright light, infectiously enthusiastic and extremely likeable. He will be missed by his loyal fans across the country. He will be missed by his fellow campaigners. With an eclectic collection of headgear on head, guitar in hand and maybe with kazoo in mouth, Jonny we will miss you sorely.
Lord C-J says Ministers must ensure the multi-billion pound fashion industry industry is not put at risk
This is a piece I recently did for the House Magazine: ‘From fashion to furniture, Britain’s design sector relies on EU protections, writes Lord Clement-Jones’.
It was notable from her speech at the Mansion House earlier this month that the Prime Minister has woken up to the threat to our broadcasters of exit from the EU through loss of country of origin rules – the rules which have enabled the UK to operate as an international broadcasting hub.
The fact is, however, that this is but one of the many severe threats to our creative industries posed by Brexit.
The Prime Minister also needs to recognise the threat posed by Brexit to the design sector, which includes the fashion industry and furniture lighting and furnishings and many other design areas, from the potential loss of European unregistered design rights for United Kingdom-generated designs.
European design laws protect the individual character of a design, in particular as they relate to shape, texture, contours, lines, colour, ornamentation or materials. UK unregistered design right protects only the shape and configuration of a design.
Recently the Law Society made the news when it revealed that London Fashion Week is under serious threat from Brexit. They said it could lose its status as an event where new clothing creations are unveiled because laws that protect European fashion houses from unauthorised copying may no longer apply in London when Britain leaves the EU next year.
Fashion houses that first reveal an unregistered design on the London catwalk would be at risk from copies going on sale in the EU.
"As the majority in the industry are micro and SME design innovators with less than four employees they are particularly vulnerable to infringement of their designs."
— Lord Clement-Jones
In 2016 the value of UK fashion and textile exports stood at £9.1bn. The fashion industry, through the British Fashion Council, has highlighted the serious consequences for British fashion designers if they lose unregistered EU design rights protection in the other 27 member states. Potentially losing the protection currently available under EU law will leave these UK designers in a disadvantageous position versus their EU competitors.
These are typical but high profile examples of how designers across the board may be forced to launch new designs in EU countries after Brexit.
The potential impact to our economy is massive. UK design and design skills in the UK are currently worth a startling £209bn. This is put at risk if legal protection for design IP is weakened.
The reason for this is that copying is endemic not only in the fashion sector but in the lighting, furniture, furnishings, gift and product and many more design sectors, all of which will also be affected by loss of the EU unregistered design right. As the majority in the industry are micro and SME design innovators with less than four employees they are particularly vulnerable to infringement of their designs.
In the Lords this Thursday I will be seeking a firm assurance from the government that it will provide a solution to the potential loss of EU design rights in one of the fastest growing sectors in the economy. I will be calling on ministers to end this major threat to our design sector and introduce legislation which will offer the same EU unregistered IP rights’ protection as they now enjoy in 28 member states.
Unlike some other Brexit conundrums, in this case the solution lies in government’s hands and we and the design industry have every right to expect urgent action.
Lord C-J helps launch the 2017 Live Music Census Report
I recently helped to launch the excellent Report on the 2017 Live Music Census carried out by Emma Webster Mat Brennan, Adam Behr, Martin Cloonan and Jake Ansell at the Musicians union HQ in Clapham Road. I was asked to give an overview of Parliamentary progress in supporting grassroots music venues. This is what I said:
First of all many congratulations to Emma , Matt, Adam, Martin and Jake for a really impressive high quality report. In this company I can say they make a virtuoso quintet!
It will really underpin and validate the case that so many of us are making inside and outside Parliament about the importance of live music and the closures and potential threats to grassroots music venues, which are such an important part of our music scene both for audiences and musicians.
Just a couple of weeks ago, many of you will remember, there was a very impressive turnout by peers and MP’s in support of John Spellar’s Agent of Change Bill outside Parliament .
The sheer support for the Bill and the far greater interest by Parliamentarians in the welfare of Grassroots Music Venues will be reinforced by the research carried out by the authors of this UK Live Music Census but is also testimony to the concerted activities over the past few years of campaigners such as UK Music, the Music Venues Trust and the MU and many in this room. We are now creating a much bigger campaigning community for music in Parliament.
Parliamentarians are now much more alive to the fact-as shown in today’s report-that there has been in recent years a perfect storm of circumstances for the night-time economy, resulting in a continuing decline in grassroots live music venue and they realize that once gone, these venues will not come back into our towns and cities.
The report itself highlights rising rents and business rates, planning and property development issues, and noise related complaints as the key contributing factors.
There have however been some individual bright spots as result of these issues being raised by campaigners. The campaign for Agent of Change is a case in point.
As a result of a campaign in a previous Housing and Planning bill, Agent of Change principles were made to expressly cover conversions but did not cover new build.
After the introduction of John Spellar’s new Bill which expressly provides for this, Sajid Javid has agreed to include the principle “in detail” in the National Planning policy Framework which will make housing developers building new homes near UK venues responsible for addressing noise issues and this should help protect venues from any new build development in their nearby vicinity.
Also there seems to be some daylight on business rates reform in terms of an indexation switch to CPI, . A discount for pubs is welcome but relief needs to be extended explicitly to grass roots venues as a whole. The London Mayor’s Economic Development strategy recognizes the issue for the London’s night time economy and is pressing the Valuation Office Agency to review its valuation policy, which would be a step in the right direction. But all this needs to happen quickly and it needs to be nationwide.
"We are now creating a much bigger campaigning community for music in Parliament."
— Lord Clement-Jones
Then there is the whole question of secondary ticketing.
In the last couple of years the campaign to stop the rip off against fans by the All Party Parliamentary Ticketing Abuse Group, groups like FanFair Alliance, trade bodies like UK Music and the MMA has by and large achieved a great deal. First of all amendments to the information requirements on ticket resellers through the Consumer Rights Act and then last year in the Digital Economy Act with the outlawing of bots buying up tickets on an industrial basis.
New guidance under the Consumer Rights Act makes it absolutely clear what information must be provided by secondary sellers and provide better protection for audiences, artists and event organisers.
The next step was to make sure that these laws are being obeyed. Having looked at this as a result of debates on the Consumer Rights Bill, the CMA last November reported that it is now taking enforcement action against some of the offending Secondary sellers, and enquiring further into their practices.
At the end of the day however, welcome though all these developments, there is more to be done. And urgently too. Venues are still closing. We need a comprehensive approach to the protection of these venues. That is why I welcome the new enquiry into Live Music being undertaken by the DCMS Select Committee
Specifically as part of that they will be asking : “How the music sector been affected by the closures of small music venues across the country,? Should small music venues be classified as cultural venues? What initiatives can be put in place to help grassroots artists and bands?”
This report will be hugely helpful in setting the scene for the Select Committee.
We need to look at ideas such as a Culture & Heritage Investment Tax relief as Music Venue Trust suggest in their evidence and imaginative schemes such as their Sound+Vision plan.
I hope UK Music will return to the idea of an amendment to the Licensing Act which would create a fifth licensing objective that would oblige licensing authorities to consider the wider benefits of music and entertainment in the community when carrying out their functions. As is stands, the cultural contribution of a grassroots music venue is not considered at all.
Having this fifth objective might just be the critical edge to a decision that will either lead to a venue closing or to it remaining open.
I don’t often quote Ed Vaizey but I thoroughly agree with what he said 2 years ago at Venues Day: “ A vibrant music venue which is breaking new acts has just as much right to be considered a cultural venue as a local or regional theatre”
So we need to make sure that Arts Council England treats Grassroots music -as they do on the continent- as an essential part of our cultural scene. It seems completely weird that the British Council do when our artists tour foreign venues but the Arts Council don’t recognize this.
We mustn’t build our expectations too much but the Select Committee has a good track record and it could produce an important platform for a new set of campaigns.
Enough from me . I was only meant to do a few riffs, so I’d better get off the stage!