4 ms·
> GDPR rules ban decisions made solely by computer algorithms when they have a significant impact on people’s lives, such as on employment, saying such decision
by tchalla 1mo ago
> GDPR rules ban decisions made solely by computer algorithms when they have a significant impact on people’s lives, such as on employment, saying such decisions require meaningful human review and a way to challenge a decision.
The law Uber broke. I can’t believe they found it that difficult to follow something as simple as that.
- roughly 1mo agoThey didn’t find it difficult, they found it expensive and figured they could avoid it. In the US, they’d probably have been right; in the EU, apparently not.
- JumpCrisscross 1mo ago> something as simple as that Dutch Uber drivers aren’t employees [1]. [1] https://nltimes.nl/2026/01/27/uber-drivers-freelancers-employees-amsterdam-court-appeal-rules https://nltimes.nl/2026/01/27/uber-drivers-freelancers-emplo...
- molf 1mo agoThat's irrelevant. The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. Nowhere in article 22 [1] does it restrict the scope to employees. If Uber processes data, and makes decisions based on that data in a purely automated way that significantly affects people, it is not allowed. That's all there is to it. [1]: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
- JumpCrisscross 1mo agoThis is a better citation than the original one.
- tecleandor 1mo ago> The case against Uber concerns European incidents from 2018 to 2022, stemming initially from a French complaint. It was handled by the Dutch regulator because Uber’s European headquarters are in the Netherlands.
- mike_hearn 1mo agoThey claim they didn't break it.
- tchalla 1mo agoDo you have a source for that?
- mike_hearn 1mo agoIt says so in the article.
- tchalla 1mo agoI know what you are referring to but it doesn't. Read carefully again, it's carefully word smithed. The case is between 2018-2022. Uber says they have human review now that doesn't mean they did have human review in that time period.
- greycol 1mo agoWhich is ridiculous on it's face, imagine claiming that stopping someone's income until you get around to reviewing it doesn't have a significant effect on someone. The real issue is if uber comes away from this thinking they can do a rubber stamp review, because the point of the law was clearly to stop unjustifiable decisions automatically being made(protecting both parties), as uber will still be on the hook for unjustified suspensions but redress will need to go through the court making it worse for all involved.