UK ICO Employment Practices and Data Protection: Monitoring Workers (2023)
Monitoring tools that use solely automated processes – UK ICO Employment Practices and Data Protection: Monitoring Workers (2023)

UK ICO Employment Practices and Data Protection: Monitoring Workers (2023) 2.3: 2.3 Human oversight must be meaningful, not a rubber stamp

People assigned to oversee automated decisions should stay engaged, critical and able to challenge outputs; where automation only supports a human decision, the decision-maker should check the recommendation rather than apply it routinely, have real influence including authority and competence to go against it, and weigh and interpret it with all the input information and other factors. Cutting pay automatically on a system's poor-performance flag without such oversight infringes the ADM rules.

Maintained by Gerard Blokdyk

What else in your programme already covers this

This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.

  • Art.22C Article 22C Safeguards for automated decision-making

Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.

Other controls in Monitoring tools that use solely automated processes – UK ICO Employment Practices and Data Protection: Monitoring Workers (2023)

Query this from an agent

The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.