This session will be a frank and critical discussion of where the GDPR has arguably failed—and what legislators could do to improve it.
The EU’s best-known regulation is not without its critics. Some argue that the law hampers innovation and imposes unnecessary costs. Others claim that the GDPR’s only problem is that regulators don’t go far enough in enforcing the law.
This session will be a frank and critical discussion of where the GDPR has arguably failed—and what legislators could do to improve it.
Paul Tang, a Member of the European Parliament, has raised concerns about the UK’s new Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (DPDI) and its potential to undermine elements of the GDPR.
The data privacy regulator in Italy has imposed a €50,000 fine on Trento for violating laws regarding the northern city’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) in urban surveillance schemes.
Within two months of its release, it reached 100 million active users, making it the fastest-growing consumer application ever launched.
The GDPR recognises a “risk-based approach” in several areas of data protection compliance. Controllers can adjust some data protection and security practices, taking into account factors such as the nature of the data, the resources of the organisation, and the “state of the art”.
Jurisdictions worldwide are improving their data protection frameworks—sometimes in the hope of obtaining EU adequacy, sometimes because the public demands them to do so. From definitions and principles to data subject rights, the influence of the GDPR is clear.
In this session, panellists will explore AI’s many potential GDPR pitfalls and address the “elephant in the room”: Is the AI industry fundamentally incompatible with a robust data protection regime?
No comments yet