The UK Home Office has responded to questions raised by Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP on its use of AI tools in the asylum decision-making process, informed by ORG's work.
-
The UK Home Office has responded to questions raised by Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP on its use of AI tools in the asylum decision-making process, informed by ORG's work.
The answers raise serious concerns. These systems are being rolled out without meaningful transparency or governance.
Read more
️
Second AI system deployed for asylum caseworkers to be deployed this month as ministers vow ‘decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim’
An automated platform for creating a summary from the transcripts of interviews is to be introduced alongside an existing tool for helping officials to search for and understand policy considerations All asylum caseworkers and decision-makers will this month be equipped with a second artifici
PublicTechnology (www.publictechnology.net)
-
The UK Home Office has responded to questions raised by Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP on its use of AI tools in the asylum decision-making process, informed by ORG's work.
The answers raise serious concerns. These systems are being rolled out without meaningful transparency or governance.
Read more
️
Second AI system deployed for asylum caseworkers to be deployed this month as ministers vow ‘decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim’
An automated platform for creating a summary from the transcripts of interviews is to be introduced alongside an existing tool for helping officials to search for and understand policy considerations All asylum caseworkers and decision-makers will this month be equipped with a second artifici
PublicTechnology (www.publictechnology.net)
AI tools in UK asylum decision-making are being deployed first, while safeguards, oversight and transparency are treated as secondary.
This approach carries serious risks to fairness, accountability, and the protection of rights.
Training alone is no replacement for proper governance frameworks.
-
At a minimum, the use of AI tools must have:
️ Clear and published safeguards️ Comply with government AI playbook️ Defined accountability structures️ Meaningful human oversight️ Full transparency on how these systems are usedWithout this, claims of responsible AI use remain unsubstantiated.
AI is not neutral. It can discriminate and make mistakes.
It shouldn't be used to change information that informs life-changing asylum assessments. Without adequate safeguards, there's a risk that unlawful or unfair decisions may result.
Ask your MP (UK) to stand against the use of AI tools in asylum
️
Ban AI tools in asylum decision making
Take action! What’s the problem? The Home Office is using two AI tools: The Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS) tool uses ChatGPT-4 to summarise asylum interview transcripts. The Asylum Policy Search (APS) tool summarises country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs), guidance documents, and Country of Origin Information (COI) reports. The Home Office’s own evaluation revealed that
Open Rights Group (action.openrightsgroup.org)
-
AI tools in UK asylum decision-making are being deployed first, while safeguards, oversight and transparency are treated as secondary.
This approach carries serious risks to fairness, accountability, and the protection of rights.
Training alone is no replacement for proper governance frameworks.
The key issues with the use of AI tools in the UK asylum system are:
No published Data Protection Impact Assessments. No procedures governing the use of AI tools. Being rolled-out before transparency. Reliance on post-hoc oversight. References to “human in the loop” without clarity over what power human decision-makers actually retain. -
The key issues with the use of AI tools in the UK asylum system are:
No published Data Protection Impact Assessments. No procedures governing the use of AI tools. Being rolled-out before transparency. Reliance on post-hoc oversight. References to “human in the loop” without clarity over what power human decision-makers actually retain.At a minimum, the use of AI tools must have:
️ Clear and published safeguards️ Comply with government AI playbook️ Defined accountability structures️ Meaningful human oversight️ Full transparency on how these systems are usedWithout this, claims of responsible AI use remain unsubstantiated.
-
The key issues with the use of AI tools in the UK asylum system are:
No published Data Protection Impact Assessments. No procedures governing the use of AI tools. Being rolled-out before transparency. Reliance on post-hoc oversight. References to “human in the loop” without clarity over what power human decision-makers actually retain.@openrightsgroup Out of interest the exact same thing is happening with AI tools in Aged Care & Disability Care systems in Australia with all the same concerns & in the same way nothing being done about the huge problems! #AusPol #Disability #NDIS
-
The UK Home Office has responded to questions raised by Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP on its use of AI tools in the asylum decision-making process, informed by ORG's work.
The answers raise serious concerns. These systems are being rolled out without meaningful transparency or governance.
Read more
️
Second AI system deployed for asylum caseworkers to be deployed this month as ministers vow ‘decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim’
An automated platform for creating a summary from the transcripts of interviews is to be introduced alongside an existing tool for helping officials to search for and understand policy considerations All asylum caseworkers and decision-makers will this month be equipped with a second artifici
PublicTechnology (www.publictechnology.net)
First “customers” for any oppression-tech are those without rights or protections from it: prisoners, poor, and those with different abilities.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
