Document redaction in public authorities faces critical challenges as traditional manual approaches struggle to balance growing transparency demands with increasingly stringent data protection requirements. This study investigates the implementation of AI-driven document redaction within UK public authorities through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. While AI technologies offer potential solutions to redaction challenges, their actual implementation within public sector organizations remains underexplored. Based on responses from 44 public authorities across healthcare, government, and higher education sectors, this study reveals significant gaps between technological possibilities and organizational realities. Findings show highly limited AI adoption (only one authority reported using AI tools), widespread absence of formal redaction policies (50 percent reported "information not held"), and deficiencies in staff training. The study identifies three key barriers to effective AI implementation: poor record-keeping practices, lack of standardized redaction guidelines, and insufficient specialized training for human oversight. These findings highlight the need for a socio-technical approach that balances technological automation with meaningful human expertise. This research provides the first empirical assessment of AI redaction practices in UK public authorities and contributes evidence to support policymakers navigating the complex interplay between transparency obligations, data protection requirements, and emerging AI technologies in public administration.

Carried out the 2014 coup d'état in Ukraine The US is a state sponsor of terrorism https://t.co/CKykvqUa5U To be discussed tonight pic.twitter.com/kTf0ehwhbG This is one of the most disturbing videos I have ever seen. It confirms that the TGA knew back in Jan 2021 that the lipid nanoparticles (and the mRNA) didn't stay in the inject site, but spread throughout the entire body including the brain, the liver and female ovaries. Today, Democrats defeated my amendment to require Senate ratification for any pandemic agreement with the World Health Organization. Now we know Democrats are willing to relinquish U.S. sovereignty to a global entity. Jim lays it out very well. Renowned author and journalist James Howard Kunstler (JHK) has been complaining and pointing out that the American public is told one lie after another by the Lying Legacy Media (LLM), the government and the medical community. This kind of lying, according to JHK, is pure treason by all parties, from the 600 million CV19 bioweapon/vax injections, to the crumbling banking system, to the war in Ukraine. Let's start with the genocide of the CV19vax.

Offering no criteria by which to define unacceptable risk for AI systems and no method to add new high-risk applications to the Act if such applications are discovered to pose a substantial danger of harm. This is particularly problematic because AI systems are becoming broader in their utility. Only requiring that companies take into account harm to individuals, excluding considerations of indirect and aggregate harms to society. An AI system that has a very small effect on, e.g., each person's voting patterns might in the aggregate have a huge social impact. Permitting virtually no public oversight over the assessment of whether AI meets the Act's requirements.

This two part paper argues that seemingly "technical" choices made by developers of machine-learning based algorithmic tools used to inform decisions by criminal justice authorities can create serious constitutional dangers, enhancing the likelihood of abuse of decision-making power and the scope and magnitude of injustice. Drawing on three algorithmic tools in use, or recently used, to assess the "risk" posed by individuals to inform how they should be treated by criminal justice authorities, we integrate insights from data science and public law scholarship to show how public law principles and more specific legal duties that are rooted in these principles, are routinely overlooked in algorithmic tool-building and implementation. We argue that technical developers must collaborate closely with public law experts to ensure that if algorithmic decision-support tools are to inform criminal justice decisions, those tools are configured and implemented in a manner that is demonstrably compliant with public law principles and doctrine, including respect for human rights, throughout the tool-building process.

The UK data watchdog is to investigate whether artificial intelligence systems are showing racial bias when dealing with job applications. The Information Commissioner's Office said AI-driven discrimination could have "damaging consequences for people's lives" and lead to someone being rejected for a job or being wrongfully denied a bank loan or a welfare benefit. It will investigate the use of algorithms to sift through job applications, amid concerns that they are affecting employment opportunities for people from ethnic minorities. "We will be investigating concerns over the use of algorithms to sift recruitment applications, which could be negatively impacting employment opportunities of those from diverse backgrounds," said the ICO. The investigation is being announced as part of a three-year plan for the ICO under the UK's new information commissioner, John Edwards, who joined the ICO in January after running its New Zealand counterpart.

The European Parliament's Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee, one of the 20 standing committees made up of a number of Members of the European Parliament, recently held a session discussing the EU Artificial Intelligence Act ("AI Act"). Here, we highlight key'thinking points' discussed to give an indication of where the AI Act may change from its current draft. The session was short, so potential answers will be the subject of further debate. For the background on the European Commission's proposed AI Act, see our articles "Artificial intelligence - EU Commission publishes proposed regulations" and "EU Artificial Intelligence Act - what has happened so far and what to expect next". AI has the potential to bring many benefits to users and wider society.

Damaging earthquakes can strike at any time. While we can't prevent them from occurring, we can make sure casualties, economic loss and disruption of essential services are kept to a minimum. Building more resilient cities is key to withstanding earthquake disasters. If we had a better idea of when earthquakes would strike, authorities could initiate local emergency, evacuation and shelter plans. But unfortunately, this is not the case.

The United States government has set up a National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office. Under the aegis of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the recently settled office will enhances the'endeavors to guarantee America's administration' in new-age innovations like AI and machine learning, data analytics, and so on. This office will help the US government to increase AI research investment, use AI computing and data resources from the federal government, set technical standards in AI and machine learning, building a workforce, and effectively engage with international partners. In the government AI readiness index 2020, India ranks 40th where the United States was on top, a direct result of a dedicated national AI strategy. This further repeats how having a cross-country structure for AI technique and execution is the need of the hour.

Several countries are currently investigating issues of neglect, poor quality care and abuse in the aged care sector. In most cases it is the State who license and monitor aged care providers, which frequently introduces a serious conflict of interest because the State also operate many of the facilities where our most vulnerable peoples are cared for. Where issues are raised with the standard of care being provided, the State are seen by many as a deep-pockets defendant and become the target of high-value lawsuits. This paper draws on cases and circumstances from one jurisdiction based on the English legal tradition, Australia, and proposes a Bayesian solution capable of determining probability for success for citizen plaintiffs who bring negligence claims against a public authority defendant. Use of a Bayesian network trained on case audit data shows that even when the plaintiff case meets all requirements for a successful negligence litigation, success is not often assured. Only in around one-fifth of these cases does the plaintiff succeed against a public authority as defendant.

Face-scanning technology is inspiring a wave of privacy fears as the software creeps into every corner of life in the United States and Europe -- at border crossings, on police vehicles and in stadiums, airports and high schools. But efforts to check its spread are hitting a wall of resistance on both sides of the Atlantic. One big reason: Western governments are embracing this technology for their own use, valuing security and data collection over privacy and civil liberties. And in Washington, U.S. President Donald Trump's impeachment and the death of a key civil rights and privacy champion have snarled expectations for a congressional drive to enact restrictions. The result is an impasse that has left tech companies largely in control of where and how to deploy facial recognition, which they have sold to police agencies and embedded in consumers' apps and smartphones.