| ▲ | squidbeak 2 hours ago | |
It sounds very reasonable. But it's also directly contradicted by the government information about this case, which was very specific even about the number of breaches: > Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. > ... the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company. (from https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-02-10/debates/037...) | ||