Transparency data

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation Minutes - Board Meeting 4

Updated 12 October 2023

This transparency data was withdrawn on 16 October 2023

This content is no longer current. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) Advisory Board closed on 9 September 2023.

17 April 2019

1.15pm - 5.00pm

Tech UK, 10 St Bride St, London EC4A 4AD

Attendees:

• Roger Taylor (RT)
• Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft (SC)
• Edwina Dunn (ED)
• Prof Luciano Floridi (LF)
• Dame Patricia Hodgson (PH)
• Baroness Kate Rock (KR)
• Dame Glenys Stacey (GS)
• Dr Adrian Weller (AW)
• Prof Lord Robert Winston (RW)

Apologies:

• Dr Susan Liautaud (SL)
• Richard Sargeant (RS)
• Kriti Sharma (KS)

Observers (CDEI staff):

• Michael Birtwistle (MB)
• Jen Boon (JB)
• Ollie Buckley (OB)
• Sam Cannicott (SCa)
• Natalie Davis (ND)
• Benedict Dellot (BD)
• Stephen Dunne (SD)
• Louise Pakseresht (LP)

Item 1: Chair’s Welcome

The Chair, RT, welcomed the Board to the fourth meeting.

Declaration of interests:

• There were no declared interests.

Minutes from previous Board meeting:

• RT asked the Board to approve the draft minutes from the previous Board meeting.

Decisions:

• The Board agreed the minutes from the previous Board meeting.

Actions:

• CDEI to publish the minutes on gov.uk.

Chair’s update:

• RT provided an update to the Board on his recent activities. These included:
(i) The No.11 launch event which was a success with a good turnout and positive feedback from the Secretary of State. RT is meeting the Secretary of State the following week for a general catch-up.
(ii) A meeting with Damian Collins MP, Chair of the DCMS Select Committee.
(iii) Shoshana Zuboff event which was well attended by many stakeholders.
• There is ongoing work planning the Board visit to Edinburgh in September. The team will circulate further details to the Board in the coming weeks.

Head of CDEI Team’s update:

• OB provided an update to the Board on operational progress the CDEI is making, including recruitment and internal staff changes.
• OB highlighted the need for the Centre to be prepared for the move to a statutory footing.
• Board management software to manage Board meetings and papers is currently being procured.

Item 2: Reporting

Forward Look

• OB presented the forward look for the next three months and the rest of the year.
• The Board noted the potential for the CDEI to be put on a statutory footing in the Online Harms Bill.
• The team is working with DCMS on internal preparations for the spending review although it is not yet clear when this be announced.
• Board members suggested that the timelines for the Reviews were very clear and we should look to do the same for A&A outputs, subject to the discussion later in the Board meeting.
• As the work of the CDEI increases, May and June are likely to bring increased external activity.

Risk register

• The Board noted that resourcing is a consistent risk and asked whether we are being realistic about the CDEI’s ambitions given its limited resources. Our outputs need to be consistently high quality and stay focussed on the areas we can add value.
• The ICO have a consultation on a code for age-appropriate design and the Board raised a question on whether we should be responding to this. The team responded that we are liaising with the ICO on the consultation but would consider whether a formal response was needed.
• The European Parliament’s work on ethics was flagged as an area the CDEI should be noting and discussing.
• Board members expressed a desire to ensure Board discussions allowed time to discuss substantive issues relating to the CDEI’s workstreams in addition to the operations of the organisation.

Action:

• CDEI to consider whether a formal response to the ICO’s consultation on ageappropriate design would be helpful.

Budget

• There was a discussion on whether the CDEI should start considering a contingency budget now in case of any underspend towards the end of the year.
• It was noted that there is scope for more public engagement work however this would need to be strategically considered before additional budget was spent.
• Another option raised was to use some budget to bring in more technical resource.

Actions:

• CDEI to incorporate Board comments into budget planning ahead of next Board meeting.

Item 3: Reviews

Targeting Review

The Review Team updated the Board on the progress made so far on the targeting review. They highlighted that the scoping phase was now coming to an end and the next stage would be focussed on the public engagement work and undertaking a thorough analysis of business practices and governance frameworks to identify gaps in regulation. As previously agreed with the Board, some budget for the project is currently being spent on delivering the public dialogue exercise and bringing in additional expertise to the team.

The Board discussed the Review and made the following points:

• Overall the Review is headed in a good direction.
• It is important that the impact of targeting on democracy and elections is incorporated more clearly into the review. The example was given of how political campaigns that use online targeting are hard to scrutinize because each side may not know what the other is saying.
• We need to be clear what we mean by “governance”. The Review Team should coordinate with the A&A Team to stay up to date on their work on governance too.
• The impacts of targeting on individuals and on groups are both important.
• There is a need to clarify the language used about the Review more precisely, and to consider any potential overlaps with the Bias Review.

Actions:

• CDEI to incorporate Board comments into the online targeting review where appropriate.

Bias Review

The Review Team updated the Board on the progress made so far on the bias review. The focus of the review for the first half of this year will be the crime and justice and financial services sectors. The team have recently received the literature review which will inform the Review. The next steps will be finalising the algorithmic bias test procurement and approving the methodology for the predictive policing project.

The Board discussed the Review and made the following points:

• Interest in our engagement with financial services. The Review team suggested they circulate a list of key organisations.
• The principle of fairness and how it requires a precise definition - tradeoffs may be necessary so parameters will need to be defined.
• Fairness should go beyond protected characteristics with socio-economic status highlighted as an area that was being considered. Although this should also be balanced against wider considerations e.g in relation to credit scoring and loans.
• More could be done to encourage the sharing of best practice amongst police forces as some do not have the technology.

Actions:

• The Review Team to circulate relevant list of financial services organisations.
• CDEI to incorporate Board comments into the bias review where appropriate.

Item 4: Analyse and Anticipate (A&A)

The A&A team introduced the paper detailing the proposed strategy and governance of the A&A function. The team outlined that the aim of A&A is to provide insights about emerging data-driven technology and inform the public debate. This breaks down into four key areas: responding, monitoring, anticipating and convening. Each four of these areas will lead to their own outputs. A&A will be governed by a steering group made up of Board members who will meet regularly to provide advice and oversight.

Strategy and Governance

• Overall the Board were content with the strategy and governance and agreed it would be a hugely useful area of expertise for the CDEI.
• There was a discussion about the role of the CDEI in supporting research projects undertaken by external organisations and/or individuals. The Board agreed that as an independent organisation we should be cautious about supporting individual pieces of research but there is scope for setting out key research themes the CDEI believes are important.

Actions:

• CDEI to bring a proposal to Board detailing how the CDEI could support research projects.

Decisions:

• The Board approved the strategy and governance proposal.

Zoom-ins

The A&A Team introduced the zoom-in papers. The purpose of zoom-in papers is to explore an issue in greater detail over a number of months. The Board agreed to proceed with two proposals:

1) Ethical Data Sharing - This project will examine potential mechanisms for increasing the level of ethical data sharing in the UK, such that the opportunities of AI and data-driven technology can be maximised without jeopardising the rights and wishes of the public. The Board noted a particular need to increase awareness about the potential value of data (i.e. to spur demand), as well as finding ways to strengthen the structural mechanisms that could underpin responsible data sharing. The CDEI will commence this project with immediate effect.

2) Facial Recognition Technology - This project will explore governance gaps in relation to facial recognition technology (FRT), which has attracted significant attention in recent months. Applications of FRT continue to grow, including within law enforcement, identity verification and on social media. However doubts remain over its accuracy, as well as its implications for people’s privacy. The Board welcomed the opportunity to explore the risks and opportunities of FRT in more detail, recognising that where research has been undertaken to date, it has typically focused on policing while leaving other sectoral applications untouched. The CDEI will commence this project in the Summer of 2019.

Snapshots

The A&A team presented a draft snapshot paper on the subject of deep fakes as an example of the type of output that might be produced. The A&A team explained that snapshots are short, briefing papers to respond to immediate public concerns.

• The Board liked both the content and format of the snapshot and agreed they should be around 8 minute reads.

Decisions:

• The Board agreed to go ahead with producing a snapshot series.

Actions:

• CDEI to propose snapshot topics to the Board.

Item 5: Stakeholder and Communications Plan

The team presented the stakeholder and communications plan. The team emphasized that the focus for the CDEI in the first year of operation will be on well-planned, targeted activity to mitigate the risk of spreading ourselves too thinly. This would involve developing strategic relationships with key stakeholders and making sure we have consistent messaging around our aims.

• There was a discussion around the elevator pitch and the Board felt it needed to be further refined to cater to different audiences. The Board agreed that there should be a key message that articulates the CDEI’s aim, and then more targeted messages for different audiences.
• There was a discussion on branding, with questions raised over whether pink was the right colour.
• For the order of outputs, it was felt that context would be needed prior to the publication of the literature reviews relating to the Reviews. It was agreed that the tone of the review content would differ from the snapshots which would be more easily digestible.
• There was a discussion around growing the number of email addresses held in the stakeholder database as well as opportunities to develop a newsletter.
• The Board also emphasized the need to include evaluation as part of the strategy. This could include collecting data on how many people are engaging with publications and newsletters.
• There was a suggestion to have a standard piece of text explaining what the CDEI does on every publication.

Actions:

• Strategy team to develop key messages and report back to the Board.
• Strategy team to continue developing the stakeholder database.
• Strategy team to consider ways to evaluate stakeholder and communications engagement.

Item 6: Operations Update

ND gave an update on the office move. In the short-term we are looking for office spaces outside of DCMS but close to Westminster. Once we move to a statutory footing, there will be a presumption that the CDEI would move out of London. The Board raised concerns about this, noting that being in London was essential for stakeholder engagement and the need to remain in a global city given the cross-border nature of data and AI. Given the size of the CDEI, the Board questioned the rationale for moving out of London as the CDEI was not a major employer and is unlikely to be a driver of growth in its location.

Action:

• CDEI to feed back the Board’s views to DCMS

Item 7: AOB

NHSx

• NHS X are undertaking a piece of work and would like to liaise with the CDEI, including the Board, via a workshop on XX May. Some members expressed a desire to attend the workshop.
• There was agreement that potential joint partnerships with other organisations, such as NHSx, should be considered carefully given our independent status.

Action:

• CDEI to circulate details of the NHSx workshop to the Board.

Online Harms White Paper

• There was a discussion about the Government’s Online Harms White Paper and whether the CDEI would issue a formal response to the consultation.

Action:

• CDEI to consider whether a formal response to the Online Harms White Paper would be helpful.

European Commission’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI

• The Board agreed that the CDEI should consider responding to the European Commission’s “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI”.

Action:

• CDEI to draft a statement for RT to publish acknowledging the report.