If the person was just rubber-stamping the computer decision, then likely yes it would still be against the law. They would likely need to demonstrate that each case was evaluated and considered by a person with proper knowledge and/or training to make such a decision.
If rubber-stamping decisions by a supervising person is a breach of this GDPR rule, then the judiciary should be very thankful that the legislative excluded it from GDPR's scope :D
Likely true, but I was speaking specifically about rubber-stamping an automated computer decision. The law seems to require human judgment to be applied, and just passing a computer decision unchallenged doesn't seem to do that. But I don't live in Europe, so maybe I'm giving it too much credit.
Comments
If the person was just rubber-stamping the computer decision, then likely yes it would still be against the law. They would likely need to demonstrate that each case was evaluated and considered by a person with proper knowledge and/or training to make such a decision.
If rubber-stamping decisions by a supervising person is a breach of this GDPR rule, then the judiciary should be very thankful that the legislative excluded it from GDPR's scope :D
Likely true, but I was speaking specifically about rubber-stamping an automated computer decision. The law seems to require human judgment to be applied, and just passing a computer decision unchallenged doesn't seem to do that. But I don't live in Europe, so maybe I'm giving it too much credit.