Latest news with #CodeofPractice
Euronews
18 hours ago
- Business
- Euronews
US tech giants ask European Commission for 'simplest possible' AI code
US tech giants Amazon, IBM, Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI have called upon the European Commission to keep its upcoming Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI (GPAI) 'as simple as possible', according to now published minutes of a meeting held last week. In a meeting with Werner Stengg, an official in the cabinet of EU Tech Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, the companies said that the code 'should be as simple as possible, so as to avoid redundant reporting and unnecessary administrative burden'. The voluntary Code of Practice on GPAI, aims to help providers of AI models – such as large language models like ChatGPT, comply with the EU's AI Act. The final draft was due out on 2 May but was delayed because the Commission 'received a number of requests to leave the consultations open longer than originally planned.' The EU executive appointed thirteen experts last September to work on the guidelines and organised plenary sessions and workshops enabling some 1,000 participants to share feedback. The previous texts were criticised by publishers for impacts on copyright rules, while US Big Tech companies said the draft would stymie innovation and prove burdensome. The companies told Stengg that the final text should 'allow its signatories sufficient time to implement the various commitments after the publication of the final version of the Code' and warned that it should not go beyond the intended scope of the AI Act itself. Earlier this month, ABBA member Björn Ulvaeus warned lawmakers in Brussels that he is concerned about 'proposals driven by Big Tech' that weaken creative rights under the AI Act. The artist - who is the president of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) - echoed concerns voiced by other creative industry players in recent months. The Commission said previously that the aim is to publish the latest draft 'before the summer'. On 2 August, the rules on GP AI tools enter into force. The AI Act itself - which regulates AI tools according to the risk they pose to society - entered into force in August last year. Its provisions apply gradually, before the Act will be fully applicable in 2027. Ukraine is no longer prohibited from using long-range weapons on targets within Russia in the ongoing effort to repulse its invasion, one of its key European allies signalled on Monday. In the past, Ukraine received long-range missiles from the US, UK, Germany, and France, but was only allowed to use them against any Russian forces that were in occupied Ukrainian territory. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told journalists that the lifting of restrictions - which, he later clarified, was a decision made months ago - will make "the decisive difference in Ukraine's warfare". "A country that can only oppose an attacker on its own territory is not defending itself adequately," he said. Following Merz's comments, Euronews Next takes a look at which weapons Ukraine can now use unrestricted, and how they might impact the course of the war now in its fourth year. The Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) is a long-range surface-to-surface missile artillery weapon system that strikes targets "well beyond the range of exising Army canons," according to US manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The missiles on the system are "all-weather adaptable, stealthy firepower" against targets up to 300 km away. The missiles are fired either from the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) or MLRS M270 platforms, both produced by Lockheed Martin. The Russian Defence Ministry confirmed in November 2024 that it had shot down some of the first foreign-made long-range missiles fired directly into their territory, including six US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). But it was not the first time Ukraine had fired them. Reports from as far back as October 2023 suggest Ukraine fired ATACMS missiles that reportedly destroyed nine helicopters at Russian bases in the eastern part of the country. The Storm Shadow, or SCALP to the French, is a long-range missile jointly manufactured between France and the UK that weighs 1,300 kg and has a range "in excess" of 250 km. European multinational manufacturer MBDA said the missile works well for pre-planned attacks against stationary targets, like hardened bunkers or key infrastructure. The missile is described by MBDA as offering a high-precision strike day or night because it combines GPS, onboard guidance systems, and terrain mapping to find its target. Once the Storm Shadow missile approaches a target, an infrared device matches an image of the target with stored pictures on its onboard hard drive to make sure the target matches its mission, MBDA said. The missile's warhead has a first charge that allows it to penetrate a bunker or clear soil, then after it lets out a fuze to control how the ordnance detonates. It's already in service with the UK, French, and Italian militaries, MBDA said. In Germany, much of the conversation has centred on supplying Ukraine with Taurus missiles. The Taurus KEPD 350, manufactured jointly by Swedish company Saab and MBDA Deutschland, is an "incomparable modular standoff missile" that can land precision strikes on stationary targets like bunkers and high-value targets like large radar stations. The Taurus flies at low terrain to penetrate thick air defenses and shoot down targets with a 481 kg warhead system called the MEPHISTO. The air-to-surface missile system has a range of over 500 km and weighs 1400 kg. Before Germany's last federal election held in February, Merz, as leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, had called for the delivery of Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Merz has now signalled that Ukraine and Germany would produce the "This will be a cooperation on an industrial level, which can take place both in Ukraine and here in Germany," Merz said. While restrictions on long-range weapons have been lifted, Merz declined to confirm if Germany would be delivering Taurus missiles to Kyiv or not.
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Mixed views on flexibility rules as workers say code is toothless
Workers are unimpressed by the code of practice for employers and employees on the right to request flexible working and remote working. A year on since the implementation of the new code, many workers remain unconvinced that the code has really empowered them in relation to their flexible and remote working rights. In this Q&A interview, Joanne Hyde, partner at law firm Lewis Silkin Dublin, explains why workers have welcomed the clarity brought by the code. She also explains why many workers also feel the code leaves the control over any employee requests around flexible work options firmly in the hands of the employer. What are the key changes that this new code has introduced? The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 introduced a number of legislative changes as follows: An entitlement to up to five days paid domestic violence leave; A right to request flexible working to provide personal care for a close relative who is in need of significant care for a serious medical reason; A general right for all employees to request remote work In both the latter case, the legislation only gives a right to request the flexible or remote work, not a right to be approved for such an arrangement. The Code of Practice which was published in March 2024 set out in detail the steps which an employee must take if requesting flexible or remote work and the steps that the employer must take on receipt of a request. The Code also sets out a non-exhaustive list of the considerations that an employer may give to a request. What clarity has the new code brought to flexible and remote working requests? Before the Code of Practice was introduced, there was a lack of clarity as to how employees could make a request for flexible or remote work and as to how employers were required to respond. The Code sets out in detail the processes for making and managing request and the relevant timelines. A standardised formal process assists employers in assessing requests in a consistent, objective, and reasonable manner. The Code assists with developing policies around the making and management of requests and includes template forms. While most workplaces had already introduced some element of hybrid working following the pandemic, there was still a lot of misconception as to what an employee was entitled to by way of flexible or remote working. From an employee perspective, the Code has legitimised flexible and remote working by putting them on a formal legislative footing. From an employer perspective, it gives greater clarity on how to manage requests and the factors to be considered. Do all parties see the codes as striking a balance between business and personal needs? Trade unions, politicians and employee representatives have been critical of the Code of Practice. The main criticism is that while the legislation and the Code provide a framework for employees to request flexible or remote work, there is no entitlement for employees to have those requests approved or even to challenge the reason for the refusal. Employers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny requests, and employees have limited recourse if their request is denied. The Code does not provide employees with a legal right to remote or flexible work, and there is basis for a complaint about the employer's decision to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The only complaint to the WRC is that the employer's decision was made without following the proper procedures outlined in the Code. The Code expressly states that the WRC does not have the legal power to assess the merits of the employer's decision. This means that even if an employee is unhappy about the refusal of a request, if the employer has followed the proper process in considering the request, there is no valid complaint to the WRC. Recent cases taken to the WRC have confirmed this. The right has therefore been criticised as being meaningless or toothless. Employee representatives have also criticised the level of discretion open to employers in considering request. The Code sets out a lengthy list of the factors that an employer might consider, thereby giving employers a variety of reasons related to the job, its duties and its business needs which might be taken into account. The employer does not necessarily need to take account of the employee's personal or individual circumstances. Others argue that the Code does nothing to address the risk of 'always on' cultures. This same criticism was levelled at the Code of Practice on the Right to Disconnect which was published in March 2021 and, likewise has had little real impact on working hours or cultures. What will the changes mean for employers going forward? Because the cases that have been decided thus far in the WRC have reinforced the reality that employers maintain full discretion over whether to approve or deny requests, employee and their legal advisors, may seek to utilize other legislation which give the WRC more effective rights to compensate employees and/or direct an employer to take a certain course of action. The most obvious are the Employment Equality Acts which prohibit discrimination on the basis of a number of protected characteristics including family status, age, and disability. Certain categories of employees such as parents, caregivers and employees with disabilities are more likely to request remote work. If their requests are disproportionately denied when compared to requests of other employees, the employer's policy may be indirectly discriminatory. Where employees have a disability, there is a proactive obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodation to enable the person to do their job, unless the accommodation represents a disproportionate burden on the employer. If an employee positions a request for flexible or remote working as being an accommodation for a medical condition (for themselves or a close family member), employers will not have the same discretion in refusing the request. Read More Business movers: People starting new jobs in Ireland The fact that the Code of Practice is widely seen as being imbalanced and more on the side of business and employers means that there may be pressure for further legislative reform, including giving the WRC the ability to consider the fairness or reasonableness of the employer's decision rather than overseeing adherence to the processes for considering the requests. Employees in some sectors where remote working is more difficult to implement (such as healthcare, manufacturing, and retail) complain that sectoral specific guidelines should be introduced to give them access to any form of flexible working.
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex?
Whenever the Scottish Government is asked how it is responding to the Supreme Court's ruling on the legal definition of 'woman', the answer is usually some variation of: we're waiting for the EHRC. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is due to publish its updated statutory Code of Practice — a sort of authoritative instruction manual on applying the Equality Act — later this year. But the problem for service providers, public bodies and associations is that while they are in this holding pattern, the law already applies. Read more from Unspun: As a spokesperson for the EHRC told me the other week: 'As we have said publicly since 16 April, the law — as set out in the Supreme Court's judgment — is effective immediately. Those with duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices. Where necessary, duty-bearers should take appropriate specialist legal advice.' That is essentially what the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) did earlier this month, when it adopted an 'interim' position and confirmed that male and female toilets and changing facilities at Holyrood would be either designated by biological sex or gender neutral. That move made Holyrood something of an outlier. At Westminster, Stormont and the Senedd, existing policies remain unchanged. Over the weekend, 16 MSPs and 29 Holyrood staffers added their names to an open letter to Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone, coordinated by the Good Law Project, challenging the SPCB's decision. Among the signatories are former ministers Elena Whitham and Emma Roddick, Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, and former Labour leadership contender Monica Lennon. The letter was also signed by two of Nicola Sturgeon's staff — though not by the former first minister herself. The letter argues that the SPCB has misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling and that the change in policy is 'deeply invasive' and raises 'immediate questions about enforcement'. Curiously, one of the MSPs criticising the decision is Green MSP Maggie Chapman — who, er, also happens to be one of the five members of the SPCB. To be fair, the SPCB's own paper and equality impact assessment make clear they had little choice. Parliament's Deputy Chief Executive, supported by a small advisory group, warned MSPs that as both an employer and service provider, the SPCB is legally required to offer separate male and female facilities based on biological sex under the Equality Act 2010 and workplace safety regulations. Failing to do so, the MSPs were warned, could expose Holyrood to legal challenge. Redesignating those spaces accordingly — while also expanding gender-neutral options — was deemed the most defensible and inclusive course of action. But if that is the legal advice going to the SPCB, it stands to reason that other Scottish public bodies are hearing the same. Nevertheless, most are waiting for the Scottish Government — who are waiting for the EHRC. A cynic might suggest this is about political cover. Waiting for the regulator to make the call allows the Government and other bodies to avoid a potentially toxic row. They are not making the change — they are just following orders. But in the meantime, there is confusion. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association has warned that schools 'do not have the luxury of waiting for updated guidance' and is urging the Government to issue clarity now. And that is the problem at the heart of this: the law remains the law, and while MSPs and their employees sign open letters, the people charged with implementation are trying to navigate the consequences.
Euronews
20-05-2025
- Business
- Euronews
'Thank you for the copyright' - ABBA warns against AI Code
ABBA front man Björn Ulvaeus warned MEPs in Brussels on Tuesday that he is concerned about 'proposals driven by Big Tech' that weaken creative rights under the EU's AI Act. 'I am pro-tech, but I am concerned about current proposals that are being driven by the tech sector to weaken creative rights,' Ulvaeus told a hearing in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education on Tuesday. The comments from the singer songwriter - who is the President of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) - add to concerns voiced by the creative industry, including publishers and rights holders in recent months, on the drafting process of a voluntary Code of Practice on General Purpose AI (GPAI) for large language models like ChatGPT under the AI Act. The European Commission appointed thirteen experts to consider the issue last September, using plenary sessions and workshops to allow some 1,000 participants to share feedback. The draft texts since published aimed at helping providers of AI models comply with the EU's AI rulebook, but were criticised by publishers for the interplay with copyright rules, while US tech giants complained about the 'restrictive' and burdensome effects. 'The argument that AI can only be achieved if copyright is weakened is false and dangerous. AI should not be built on theft, it would be an historic abandonment of principles,' Ulvaeus said. 'The EU has been a champion of creative rights. But now we see that the Code ignores calls from the creative sector for transparency. What we want is for the EU to lead on AI regulation, not to backslide,' he said, adding that the implementation of the act should 'stay true to the original objective'. The latest draft, which was due early May, was delayed because the Commission received a large number of requests to leave the consultations open longer than originally planned. The aim is to publish the latest draft before the summer. On 2 August, the rules on GP AI tools enter into force. The administration led by Republican President Donald Trump has said the EU's digital rules, including the Code, stifle innovation. The US government's Mission to the EU sent a letter to the EU executive pushing back against the Code in April. Similar concerns were voiced by US Big Tech companies: Meta's global policy chief, Joel Kaplan, said in February that it will not sign the code because it had issues with the text as it then stood. A senior official working at the Commission's AI Office told Euronews earlier this month however, that US companies 'are very proactive' and that there is not the sense that 'they are pulling back because of a change in the administration.' The AI Act itself - which regulates AI tools according to the risk they pose to society - entered into force in August last year. Its provisions apply gradually, before the Act will be fully applicable in 2027. The EU executive can decide to formalise the Code under the AI Act, through an implementing act. Sir Elton John recently described the UK government as "absolute losers" and said he felt "incredibly betrayed" over plans in the UK to exempt technology firms developing AI from copyright laws.
STV News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- STV News
Equality watchdog opens consultation on new rules after definition of woman ruling
The equality watchdog has opened a public consultation on updates to its Code of Practice in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman. It follows the landmark judgment last month that determined the legal definition of a woman refers to 'biological women and sex' in the 2010 Equality Act. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the ruling would force it to rewrite parts of the Code of Practice for governments, public bodies, employers and others. The EHRC is Britain's equality regulator, responsible for upholding and enforcing the Equality Act 2010. It has implications for a wide variety of services that impact people's daily lives, including determining what facilities must be provided and who is able to access those facilities. What are the changes? Updates to the EHRC's Code of Practice include Explanation that Gender Recognition Certificates do not change a person's legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 Outline of what protections trans people have under the Act, whether or not they have a Gender Recognition Certificate New content on defining sex at birth, which defines sex, man and woman in the Equality Act Specification on sexual orientation that a person who is attracted to people of the same sex is either a lesbian woman or a gay man As trans men are legally female under the Equality Act, they are protected from pregnancy and maternity discrimination on that basis On Tuesday, the watchdog announced it was seeking views on updates to its rulebook. 'Since the judgment was handed down, the demand for authoritative guidance has been obvious. It's our job to provide that,' the Commission's chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner said. 'It is important that our Code is both an accurate interpretation of the law and clear to those who use it. So we want to hear views on the clarity of these updates and urge all interested parties to respond to the consultation over the next six weeks. 'We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft Code where necessary.' Last year, the EHRC ran a twelve-week consultation on wider revisions to the Code of Practice, made then to reflect a range of 'significant developments' in legislation and case law since it was first published in 2011. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, and the desire for authoritative guidance on its implications, the equality regulator has opened a fresh consultation on a number of further updates. The equality watchdog said it had incorporated the 'clear' legal position on the definition of 'sex' into relevant sections of the Code. The EHRC is asking for views on whether these updates 'clearly articulate the practical implications of the judgment' and enable those who will use the Code to understand, and comply with, the Equality Act. The consultation, opened on Tuesday, will close on Monday, June 30. The EHRC said it will review responses received as part of the consultation and make 'necessary amendments' to the draft Code of Practice. It will then be submitted to the UK minister for women and equalities for approval and laying in Parliament, before it acquires statutory status. 'This is a complex area of law, which bears on the rights of people with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment,' said Baroness Falkner. 'We know that there are strongly held views across our society, both about how the law should be interpreted and whether it reflects the right balance between those rights. So if everybody's rights are to be protected – as the Supreme Court confirmed the law intends – service providers and their legal advisors need help to navigate these challenges. 'The consultation launched today will help ensure our services Code of Practice is a useful and authoritative guide. Please tell us if you think it could be clearer or more helpful. That way, whether you're a shop owner or the chair of a local sports club; the manager of a hotel or a hospital; an HR professional or a solicitor – you will have guidance to follow so you can be confident that you're upholding the law.' The Supreme Court ruling follows a lengthy legal challenge by women's rights campaigners who challenged the Scottish Government's interpretation of anti-discrimination legislation which applies to England, Scotland and Wales. For Women Scotland had argued that 'woman' means being born a biological female. The Scottish Government had argued that 'woman' should extend to trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Holyrood's interpretation was twice upheld in Scottish courts, and ministers said their stance was 'consistent with the advice given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)'. But on April 16, the Supreme Court – the highest court in Britain – unanimously decided the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a 'biological woman and biological sex'. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
