I was amused to note this on Fox Business news in the USA: U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Wednesday that if the IRS were funded
Read the full article…
Poscher, Ralf, Artificial Intelligence and the Right to Data Protection (January 19, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769159 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3769159
“One way in which the law is often related to new technological developments is as an external restriction. Lawyers are frequently asked whether a new technology is compatible with the law. This implies an asymmetry between technology and the law. Technology appears dynamic, the law stable. We know, however, that this image of the relationship between technology and the law is skewed. The right to data protection itself is an innovative reaction to the law from the early days of mass computing and automated data processing. The paper explores how an essential aspect of AI-technologies, their lack of transparency, might support a different understanding of the right to data protection. From this different perspective, the right to data protection is not regarded as a fundamental right of its own but rather as a doctrinal enhancement of each fundamental right against the abstract dangers of digital data collection and processing. This understanding of the right to data protection shifts the perspective from the individual data processing operation to the data processing system and the abstract dangers connected with it. The systems would not be measured by how they can avoid or justify the processing of some personal data but by the effectiveness of the mechanisms employed to avert the abstract dangers associated with a specific system. This shift in perspective should also allow an assessment of AI-systems despite their lack of transparency.”
Freedom House Special Report 2021 – From Crisis to Reform: A Call to Strengthen America’s Battered Democracy: “The events of the past several months amounted to an acute crisis for democracy in the United States. An incumbent president attempted to overturn election results, a violent mob assaulted the Capitol as Congress met to formalize his defeat, and lawmakers failed to hold the outgoing leader accountable for his reckless actions, leaving him in place as the de facto chief of his party. The country avoided the worst possible outcomes. Police, at great cost, protected members of Congress from harm. The election results were given fair hearing in the courts and ultimately confirmed, and there was a peaceful transfer of power. But the crisis did not arise suddenly from an otherwise healthy political environment. US democracy is in urgent need of repair. The problems that came to a head in January had been accumulating for years. Freedom House has been tracking a gradual decline in respect for political rights and civil liberties in the United States over the past decade. The deterioration was initially marked by harmful new restrictions on voting, legislative gridlock that has made it nearly impossible for the country to address serious public policy challenges, and the growing political influence of well-funded special interest groups. The downward trend accelerated considerably over the last four years, as the Trump administration trampled institutional and normative checks on its authority, cast aside safeguards against corruption, and imposed harsh and discriminatory policies governing immigration and asylum. The United States remains a Free country, and Americans enjoy a more robust system than the vast majority of people globally. Yet when considered from a global perspective, the erosion of US democracy is remarkable, especially for a country that has long aspired to serve as a beacon of freedom for the world. A decade ago, the United States received a score of 94 out of 100 in Freedom in the World, Freedom House’s annual report on political rights and civil liberties. That put it in the company of other established democracies, such as France and Germany. Today, whereas those former peers remain at 90 or above, the United States has fallen to a score of 83, leaving it in a cohort with newer democracies like Romania, Croatia, and Panama The prominence and global influence of the United States mean that its woes have a uniquely damaging effect on democracy in the rest of the world…”
Where do you find an ex-KPMG partner over the age of 58? Quite possibly: advising the government on taxation policy.
The latest appointee is Rosheen Garnon, former national partner of KPMG's Australian taxation division. She was on Monday announced the new chair of advisory body the Board of Taxation.
Rosheen Garnon is the latest KPMG alum appointed to a government role. Rob Homer
She joins a range of senior KPMG types, most of them past its mandatory retirement age, who've found a home in the top ranks of the taxation bureaucracy. Among them: long-serving Australian tax commissioner Chris Jordan, second commissioner Jeremy Hirshhorn and ATO assistant commissioner for self-managed super funds Dana Fleming. The latter two recently appointed.
Of course, 58 is young to bow out of corporate life. What are KPMG execs to do? Unlike PwC (strongly encouraged retirement age: 55), KPMG doesn't pay them a share of its profits in perpetuity to keep the bills paid. And while it hardly looks good for the government to keep appointing poachers as game-keepers, you might be surprised by the independence of the ex-KPMG mafia.
Consider Jordan, who as we've previously noted has been a massive headache for the big four accounting firms. For example, he's warned them off promising secrecy to clients, slammed the industry's over-claiming of work expenses while threatening to undermine their understandings of legal privilege. Sometimes it takes an insider to know where the bodies are buried.
Myriam Robin Another ex-KPMG partner to advise government on tax
