AI-Driven Document Redaction in UK Public Authorities: Implementation Gaps, Regulatory Challenges, and the Human Oversight Imperative

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.02774v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 13:52:10 GMT
• Title: AI-Driven Document Redaction in UK Public Authorities: Implementation Gaps, Regulatory Challenges, and the Human Oversight Imperative
• Authors: Yijun Chen,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the implementation of AI-driven document redaction within UK public authorities through Freedom of Information requests.<n>It reveals significant gaps between technological possibilities and organizational realities.<n>The study identifies three key barriers to effective AI implementation: poor record-keeping practices, lack of standardized redaction guidelines, and insufficient specialized training for human oversight.
• Score: 2.8689825520190446
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Document redaction in public authorities faces critical challenges as traditional manual approaches struggle to balance growing transparency demands with increasingly stringent data protection requirements. This study investigates the implementation of AI-driven document redaction within UK public authorities through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. While AI technologies offer potential solutions to redaction challenges, their actual implementation within public sector organizations remains underexplored. Based on responses from 44 public authorities across healthcare, government, and higher education sectors, this study reveals significant gaps between technological possibilities and organizational realities. Findings show highly limited AI adoption (only one authority reported using AI tools), widespread absence of formal redaction policies (50 percent reported "information not held"), and deficiencies in staff training. The study identifies three key barriers to effective AI implementation: poor record-keeping practices, lack of standardized redaction guidelines, and insufficient specialized training for human oversight. These findings highlight the need for a socio-technical approach that balances technological automation with meaningful human expertise. This research provides the first empirical assessment of AI redaction practices in UK public authorities and contributes evidence to support policymakers navigating the complex interplay between transparency obligations, data protection requirements, and emerging AI technologies in public administration.

Related papers

• Responsible AI Adoption in the Public Sector: A Data-Centric Taxonomy of AI Adoption Challenges [0.0]
  This study develops a taxonomy of data-related challenges to responsible AI adoption in government.<n>Based on a systematic review of 43 studies and 21 expert evaluations, the taxonomy identifies 13 key challenges across technological, organizational, and environmental dimensions.<n> Annotated with institutional pressures, the taxonomy serves as a diagnostic tool to surface'symptoms' of high-risk AI deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T18:42:09Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Who is Responsible When AI Fails? Mapping Causes, Entities, and Consequences of AI Privacy and Ethical Incidents [31.53910982726317]
  We analyzed 202 real-world AI privacy and ethical incidents to develop a taxonomy.<n>Our findings reveal widespread harms from poor organizational decisions and legal non-compliance.<n>Our findings provide actionable guidance for policymakers and practitioners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T21:57:38Z)
• Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
  We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• Open Problems in Technical AI Governance [102.19067750759471]
  Technical AI governance refers to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI.<n>This paper is intended as a resource for technical researchers or research funders looking to contribute to AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T21:13:56Z)
• Position Paper: Technical Research and Talent is Needed for Effective AI Governance [0.0]
  We survey policy documents published by public-sector institutions in the EU, US, and China. We highlight specific areas of disconnect between the technical requirements necessary for enacting proposed policy actions, and the current technical state of the art. Our analysis motivates a call for tighter integration of the AI/ML research community within AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T06:32:28Z)
• AI Procurement Checklists: Revisiting Implementation in the Age of AI Governance [18.290959557311552]
  Public sector use of AI has been on the rise for the past decade, but only recently have efforts to enter it entered the cultural zeitgeist. While simple to articulate, promoting ethical and effective roll outs of AI systems in government is a notoriously elusive task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T01:45:38Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Explainability in AI Policies: A Critical Review of Communications, Reports, Regulations, and Standards in the EU, US, and UK [1.5039745292757671]
  We perform the first thematic and gap analysis of policies and standards on explainability in the EU, US, and UK. We find that policies are often informed by coarse notions and requirements for explanations. We propose recommendations on how to address explainability in regulations for AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T07:53:07Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.