This is a non trivial question. There are ethical questions, such as "is promoting effective search with censorship in the interests of the human race, in the short, medium and long term?".
There are moral questions, such as "Will effective search help promote the downfall of the Chinese oligarchy even though the obvious query routes are monitored and censored and may lead to users encountering death or slightly less trivial oppression?"
And then there are always the commercial interests based searches, which can be as crude as:
"If the buggers win, then what does that mean for us?"
"What will the public think of us if we do this?"
"Can we hide / PR Justify doing this whilst improving our political position with PRC and making a shed load of shekels?"
Each organisation will no doubt make up it's own stance on this - but as organisations get larger, there tends to be a trend that moves from "do no evil", to ...
As the ICO is an independent organisation and not a part of government technically speaking the UK Government does not have access to the data.
Furthermore under the GDPR the "Public Task", and any derogations under "the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences;" would justify accessing and processing this data.
You may be unhappy that the data is in UK hands and I sympathize with that view but the processing of it is in accordance with the GDPR and prior legislation. After all, in the UK, UK law is paramount.
As a UK citizen I have a somewhat confused understanding of this; who makes the laws of Georgia? If the "Annotated" code is de facto de juris then it would appear that the state of Georgia (deliberate lower case) has given the law making ability to LexisNexis which would seem somewhat problematical.
Howsoever should the state retain control then LN is merely a transcriber of statements made in court, in which case there would seem to be no copyright as no creative statement has been made - and indeed were it to have been then the firm would be abrogating the right of the state to make laws.
So if there is a criminal art ( sorry creative art) then it should have no legal standing - and if there is not then there is no justification to the claim of copyright.
Which leads me at least back, if not any one else to the question of who authori(z)ses or vets these documents - to sort of make a kind of legal point:
Perhaps a question that has yet to be addressed is that in which the autonomous vehicle takes an active role in preventing an accident that it is predicting will happen - the car travelling at high speed that will collide with the school bus [does the software recognise school busses or merely collisions?] and so drives itself to intercept the incoming vehicle, causing a collision but saving the bus.
How does one evaluate that?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by SimonN.
Pay offs
This is a non trivial question. There are ethical questions, such as "is promoting effective search with censorship in the interests of the human race, in the short, medium and long term?".
There are moral questions, such as "Will effective search help promote the downfall of the Chinese oligarchy even though the obvious query routes are monitored and censored and may lead to users encountering death or slightly less trivial oppression?"
And then there are always the commercial interests based searches, which can be as crude as:
"If the buggers win, then what does that mean for us?"
"What will the public think of us if we do this?"
"Can we hide / PR Justify doing this whilst improving our political position with PRC and making a shed load of shekels?"
Each organisation will no doubt make up it's own stance on this - but as organisations get larger, there tends to be a trend that moves from "do no evil", to ...
Legality
As the ICO is an independent organisation and not a part of government technically speaking the UK Government does not have access to the data.
Furthermore under the GDPR the "Public Task", and any derogations under "the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences;" would justify accessing and processing this data.
from
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/
You may be unhappy that the data is in UK hands and I sympathize with that view but the processing of it is in accordance with the GDPR and prior legislation. After all, in the UK, UK law is paramount.
Hm
Audit / Vetting
As a UK citizen I have a somewhat confused understanding of this; who makes the laws of Georgia?
If the "Annotated" code is de facto de juris then it would appear that the state of Georgia (deliberate lower case) has given the law making ability to LexisNexis which would seem somewhat problematical.
Howsoever should the state retain control then LN is merely a transcriber of statements made in court, in which case there would seem to be no copyright as no creative statement has been made - and indeed were it to have been then the firm would be abrogating the right of the state to make laws.
So if there is a criminal art ( sorry creative art) then it should have no legal standing - and if there is not then there is no justification to the claim of copyright.
Which leads me at least back, if not any one else to the question of who authori(z)ses or vets these documents - to sort of make a kind of legal point:
Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes
Other Question
Perhaps a question that has yet to be addressed is that in which the autonomous vehicle takes an active role in preventing an accident that it is predicting will happen - the car travelling at high speed that will collide with the school bus [does the software recognise school busses or merely collisions?] and so drives itself to intercept the incoming vehicle, causing a collision but saving the bus.
How does one evaluate that?