However, technological developments in the 17 years since PIPEDA go we — Ian Kerr (academic)

"It is worth taking a moment to drill down with real life examples. IBM Watson is used by H&R Block to make expert decisions about people’s tax returns. At the same time, governments are using AI to determine who is cheating on their taxes. Big Law uses ROSS to help its clients avoid legal risk. Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies use similar applications to decide which individuals will commit crimes and which prisoners will reoffend. Banks use AI to decide who will default on a loan, universities to decide which students should be admitted, employers to decide who gets the job, and so on."

"Mama raised me right. Among other things, she taught me that you don’t accept a dinner invitation and then complain to your hosts about what is being served. Mama’s gentle wisdom notwithstanding, I would like to conclude my remarks today by making two uncomfortable observations."

"Permitting such decisions without an ability to understand them can have the effect of eliminating challenges that are essential to the rule of law. When an institution uses your own personal information and data about you to decide that you don’t get a loan, or that your neighborhood will undergo more police surveillance, or that you don’t get to go to university, you don’t get the job, or you don’t get out of jail, and those decisions cannot be explained by anyone in any meaningful way, such uses of your data interfere with your privacy rights."

"I think that this is the sort of reason a number of experts have told you that we need greater transparency or, as some have put it: “algorithmic transparency.” But it is my respectful submission that transparency does not go far enough. It is not enough for companies or governments to disclose what information has been collected or used. When AI-decisions affect our life chances and opportunities, those who use the AIs have a duty to explain those decisions in a way that allows us to challenge the decision-making process itself. This is a basic privacy principle enshrined in data protection law worldwide."

"Second, as I prepare for question period, I look around the table and all I see is men. Inexplicably, your Committee itself is composed entirely of men. Yes, I realize that you have called upon a number of women to testify during the course of these proceedings. This, of course, makes sense. After all, a significant majority of privacy professionals are women. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that global thought-leadership in the field of privacy is, by majority, the result of contributions made by women. So I find it astonishing and unjustifiable that you have no women on your Committee, a decision as incomprehensible as any made by an algorithm. And so, I feel compelled to close my remarks by making this observation a part of the public record."

"Finally, I also agree with those who recognize the need for meaningful consent. In particular, I agree with the four-point proposal put forward by Professor Michael Geist. I have a further proposal outside of my main submission, which I would like very much to share with you. I am hoping that one of you will jot this down and ask me about it during the question period."