Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of the huge number of questions to be answered. I ask, therefore, if I can do follow-up questions also.

Specifically, I want to pick up on what specific measures are being putting in place in relation to article 9 and the processing of special categories of data. To be clear, we are not simply talking about special categories of data, that is, political views, religious views and sexual orientation that people might put in their profile but that which might be revealed by the actions that they are taking online and in their profile. It is important that we are very clear that it is what one does and says and what might be deduced from that. Is there any danger of any of that kind of data being included, for example, in the observed data that is being discussed? I think Deputy Dooley spoke about that. I refer to the question of that observed data and that clarity over who owns it, how it can be used and how it can be targeted. Is it linkable back, or is it linked back to individual accounts?

I refer to the facial recognition and specifically that question around the opt-in. If persons were to opt in in the way that was suggested, would that photograph still only be used by the user or can it be accessed or used by third parties by virtue of that opt-in? There is a concern around whether is it proportionate in terms of the purpose of the opt-in.

There is also a concern, which I know was mentioned to the American Senators on the judiciary committee, that they could expect GDPR-type regulation, but as far as I know, automatic privacy settings and automatic opt-out does not seem to be on offer to them, so maybe there is an inconsistency there. On that question of automatic highest-level privacy settings, can the witness guarantee that that will be the default?

The witness mentioned the question of data breaches. It is a crucial question as to why those whose data was breached were not informed. Is that now going to be a policy for any future data breaches?

This is my final point but it is very important. I, along with Deputy Ryan and others, wrote to ask that these optional tools be rolled out early, although I believe the regulation we need is such as Deputy Lawless has proposed. I was delighted when I heard initially about view ads but I am extremely disappointed to hear that those who purchased the ads will not be here. We are not talking about content; we are talking about commercial content. Payments are being accepting, commercial activity is taking place and ads are being sold now. We know that in the US, of the five million ads that were examined over a six week stretch, over half of the advertisers were not registered anywhere or findable online. In an initial work by Transparency Referendum and others, we know there are multiple actors, which are not registered anywhere, are not findable online and are effectively anonymous and which are putting ads up currently in relation to the referendum, and indeed there are international advertisers as well. There are situations where individuals' images have been used by the opposite side in the referendum in advertisements, that pictures have been taken from Facebook without their permission and that does not seem to have been responded to. Thank you very much.