Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Given the state of the current electoral register, I would be quite frightened about the fact that we are in charge of a database that is wholly inaccurate and are administering a database that is wholly inaccurate, contrary to a lot of the provisions of GDPR. It is urgent that we address the requirements to make sure that the basis of our democracy is actually accurate.

I would be a supporter of a PPS number being an identifier for a number of reasons already stated by colleagues in this meeting. It is adaptable for people of no fixed abode. It lends itself to uses in all sorts of different circumstances, whereas an Eircode is limited. However, I can understand that it is useful in rural areas in terms of accuracy.

I come at this from the perspective of a practitioner in privacy law and a serious fan of GDPR. However, coming back to the point made by Deputy Gould earlier, I believe GDPR can be used as a weapon for people to do as little as possible and evade their disclosure requirements rather than as a rights-based approach which it what it is.

GDPR is about our entitlements in regard to the control and use of our data. In that context, I am curious about the terms of use when an individual signs up to a social media platform of any sort. In a sense, that is a contract that the individual signs up to and the use then is prescribed by that contact, for example, in relation to political advertising, influencing and the various others uses about which we spoke earlier, including astroturfing, although I am not sure that the public in general would understand what that is. I refer to marketing or public relations campaigns being manipulated in the guise of unsolicited comments or a proliferation of views and opinions being used to give the impression that a particular opinion is supported. When augmenting and amending their terms of service, do the social media platforms put in data processing impact assessments, DPIAs? Do they supply DPIAs and who is overseeing their community standards? Do we have an entity that is doing that?

I am concerned to hear Ms Carolan say we are seen to be thought leaders when it comes to this legislation because, for me, there is a massive gap in it in that our society has changed fundamentally because of social media and we have not caught up with it. We are not even aware of the extent to which our daily lives are influenced by social media and we have become so used and addicted to the convenience and connection of it that we do not realise how much we are being influenced and changed and our very thinking is being augmented without us knowing it. I am interested in knowing how the artificial intelligence, AI, works and how the community standards are being applied. Who is the overseer in that regard? The term "political advertising" as defined or inferred in the Bill is too narrow. It is too short a space of time, in my view. That section of the legislation, in my view, is not fit for purpose and is not forward-thinking enough.

I see some sort of interplay here for, perhaps, a social media commissioner. I have looked closely at the media commission. All that is proposed there is fantastic for a specific purpose. The Data Protection Commission too is fantastic. I am a big fan. I am always very proud of Helen Dixon when she is speaking at international events and of how much we lead on this, but it is a fixed purpose also. The electoral commission will have a very confined purpose as well. How do we take the three elements of those that need to come together such that we can oversee that our whole way of thinking is being influenced and changed all of the time on platforms and yet we are unaware of it? How will that be managed, still allowing for freedom of expression but at the same time dealing with the phenomenon of disinformation? I could speak for hours but I will stop now otherwise there will be no time for answers.