“I am your Father”… my experience with Shared Parental Leave

By Dave Parslew, Senior Internal Recruiter.

As well as looking after internal recruitment, Dave is a first time dad. In this post he talks about anticipating the birth of his first born, the decision to utilise Shared Parental Leave and why more men should be utilising SPL.

Shared Parental Leave (SPL) for me seems like a fantastic opportunity to be able to spend some quality time with my first born, Sam. During our pregnancy, my wife Anna and I decided that SPL was definitely for us and when it came to ‘D’ day, we agreed that she will take the first 9 months and I will take the last 3. I always joked that May to August will be a perfect 3 months in the sun for me, though now with the birth of my child and all the work to look after a new baby, my views have of course changed!

Baby and DAve

The resemblance is already uncanny for Dave and baby Sam.

Quite a few years ago, I assumed that when I did actually have kids, I would have to go back to work after my 2 weeks of paternity and leave the all-important first year of quality time to my wife. I thought that was the only option and at the time it was! However, things have changed and the question I asked myself and all the other eligible fathers out there is why wouldn’t you?!

Around 285,000 couples in the UK are eligible every year for shared parental leave, but take-up “could be as low as 2%”, according to the Department for Business. Nearly three years after it was introduced around half of the general public still are unaware the option exists. Experts say that as well as a lack of understanding of what is on offer, cultural barriers and financial penalties are deterring some parents from sharing parental leave.

There seems to be a lot of “research undertaken by trusted organisations” about SPL out there but I say don’t just rely on the headlines and newspaper write-ups; delve a little deeper into the detail and look at the research for yourself!

Research shows the poor take-up of the policy is due to concerns about lack of financial support for fathers. I say, if you manage your finances correctly and are prepared for the eventuality that you might be slightly out of pocket for a few months of your life, you will get to spend some amazing time with your children (time you will NEVER get back) so just go for it!

However, the main problem with childcare take up remains – many men just wouldn’t want it because they’re scared it would impact their careers. It’s not that men’s attitudes are anti-childcare these days. It’s more that this fear outweighs fathers’ enthusiasm to have a stint at being a stay-at-home dad or the desire to exercise their legal right. It’s the dated belief that a man better serves their family by sticking to a traditional career path.

In my opinion, if you care that much about money, then perhaps you shouldn’t have kids in the first place as they WILL most definitely suck you dry of most of your finances. However if you see it as I see it then everyone’s a winner!

This is a government funded scheme remember, so in my case the company I work for (Sopra Steria) will have to cover my work for 3 months but they have been very accommodating about it and in some ways educated by it due to the lack of uptake.

Fair enough I won’t get paid for 3 months but there is an option to plan some ‘Staying in Touch’ days with HR (paid in full for the day) and I still accrue holiday while I am off along with Bank Holidays.

Hopefully my example will encourage others to do the same. To top it all off of course, I will have an awesome few months with my new son. I am looking forward to this immensely and the bottom line is, ”You only live once”!

Below are the key points about SPL, learn more about the intiative here.

What is Shared Parental Leave?

  • Shared parental leave (SPL) was introduced in April 2015
  • It allows parents to share 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of pay after they have a baby
  • Parents can take time off separately or can be at home together for up to six months
  • SPL is paid at £140.98 per week or 90% of your average earnings, whichever is lower

 

The Geek Shall Inherit

AI has the potential to be the greatest ever invention for humanity.  And it should be for the benefit of all humanity equally, but instead we’re heading towards a particular group, the geeks, who will benefit most from AI. AI is fundamentally more likely to favour the values of its designers, and whether we train our AI on a data set gathered from humans, or with pure simulated data through a system like deep reinforcement learning bias will, to a greater or lesser extent, remain.

A disclaimer – Humans are already riddled with bias.  Be it confirmation, selective or inclusive bias, we constantly create unfair systems and draw inaccurate conclusions which can have a devastating effect on society.  I think AI can be a great step in the right direction, even if it’s not perfect.  AI can analyse dramatically more data than a human and by doing so generate a more rounded point of view.  More rounded however is not completely rounded, and this problem is significant given any AI which can carry out a task orders of magnitude faster than a human.

To retain our present day levels of inequality while building a significantly faster AI we must dramatically reduce the number of unethical decisions it produces.  For example, if we automate a process with a system which produces only 10% as many unethical decisions as a human per transaction, but we make it 1000x faster, we end up with 100x more injustice in the world.  To retain todays levels that same system would need to make only 0.1% as many unethical decisions per transaction.

For the sake of rhyme, I’ve titled this blog the geek shall inherit.  I am myself using a stereotype, but I want to identify the people that are building AI today.  Though I firmly support the idea that anyone can and should be involved in building these systems that’s not a reflection of our world today.  Our society and culture has told certain people, women for instance, from a young age that boys work on computers and girls do not.  This is wrong, damaging and needs remedying.  That’s a problem to tackle in a different blog!  Simply accepting in this instance that the people building AI tend to be a certain type of person – Geeks.  And if we are to stereotype a geek, we’re thinking about someone who is highly knowledgeable in an area, but also socially inept, and probably a man.

With more manual forms of AI creation the problem is at its greatest.  Though we may be using a dataset gathered from a more diverse group of people, there’s still going to be selection bias in that data, as well as bias directly from the developers if they are tasked with the annotation of that data.  Whether intentionally or not , humans are always going to favour things more alike themselves and code nepotism into a system, meaning the system is going to favour geeky men like themselves more so than any other group.

In 2014 the venture capital fund ‘Deep Knowledge Ventures’ developed an algorithm called ‘VITAL’ to join their board and vote on investments for the firm.  VITAL shared a bias with it’s creators, nepotism, showing a preference to invest in businesses which valued algorithms in their own decision making (Homo Deus, Harari, 2015).  Perhaps VITAL developed this bias independently, but the chances area it’s developers unconsciously planted the seed of nepotism, and even the preference towards algorithms due to their own belief in them.

A step beyond this is deep reinforcement learning.  This is the method employed by Google’s Deep Mind in the Alpha Zero project.  The significant leap between Alpha Go and Alpha Go Zero is that Alpha Go used data recorded from humans playing Go, whereas Alpha Go Zero learned simply by playing against itself in a simulated world.  By doing this, the system can make plays which seem alien to human players, as it’s not constrained by human knowledge of the games.  The exception here is ‘move 37’ against Lee Sedol, which Alpha Go Lee used,  prior to the application of Deep Reinforcement Learning.  This move was seen as a stroke of creative brilliance that no human would ever have played, even though this system was trained on human data.

Humans also use proxies to determine success in these games.  An example of this is Alpha Go playing chess.  Where humans use a points system on pieces as a proxy to understand their performance in a game, Alpha Go doesn’t care about its score.  It’ll sacrifice valuable pieces for cheap ones when other moves which appear more beneficial are available, because it doesn’t care about its score, only about winning.  And win it does, if only by a narrow margin.

So where is the bias in this system?  Though the system may be training in a simulated world, two areas for bias remain.  For one, the layers of the artificial neural network are decided upon by those same biased developers.  Second, it is simulating a game designed by humans – Where the game board and rules of Go were designed.  Both Go and Chess for instance offer a first move advantage to black.  Though I prefer to believe that the colours of pieces on a game board has everything to do with contrast and nothing to do with race, we may be subtly teaching a machine that one colour is guaranteed by rules an advantage over others in live.

The same issue however remains in more complex systems.  The Waymo driverless car is trained predominantly in a simulated world, where it learns free from human input, fatigue and mistakes.  It is however, still fed the look and feel of human designed and maintained roads, and the human written rules of the highway code.  We might shift here from ‘the geek shall inherit’ to ‘the lawyer shall inherit’.  Less catchy, but simply by making the system learn from a system or rules that was designed by a select group of people will introduce some bias, even if it’s simulating it’s training data within the constraints of those rules.

So, what should we do?

AI still has the potential to be incredibly beneficial for all humanity.  Terminator scenarios permitting, we should pursue the technology.  I would propose tackling this issue from two fronts.

2

This would be hugely beneficial to the technology industry as a whole, but it’s of paramount concern in the creation of thinking machines.  We want our AI to think in a way that suits everyone, and our best chance of success is to have fair and equal representation throughout its development.  We don’t know how much time remains before a hard take-off of an artificial general intelligence, and we may not have time to fix the current diversity problem, but we should do everything we can to fix it.

3

Because damage caused by biased humans, though potentially catastrophic will always be limited by our inherent slowness.  AI on the other hand can implement biased actions much faster than us humans and may simply accelerate an unfair system.  If we want more equality in the world a system must focus more heavily on equality as a metric than speed, and ensure at the very least that it reduces inequality by as much as the process speed is increased e.g.;

  1. If we make a process 10x faster, we must reduce the prevalence and impact of unequal actions by at least 90%.
  2. If we create a system 1,000x faster, this reduction must be for a 99.9% reduction of inequality in its actions.

Doing this only retains our current baseline.  To make progress in this area we need go a step further with the reduction in inequality before increasing the speed.

Start with the basics

Tyler is one of Sopra Steria UK’s Volunteers of the Year. As Volunteer of the Year 2017, he travelled to India to visit our international award-winning Community programmes run by our India CSR team. Read his previous write up on his volunteer work here

Yesterday took me to the new Government Girls Inter College, Hoshiyarpur in Noida, India. The school opened this academic year and has 1,270 girls on its register, all from underprivileged backgrounds. Next year the school will grow to a size of at least 2,000 and is expected to be a lot higher than this. Yesterday held great significance for the Girls’ School and I had the honour of being able to commemorate this day with them.

For the last eight months, Computer Science has been taught by theory. More than one-thousand girls have been learning IT skills from paper. Paper! Thankfully, yesterday we were able to celebrate the opening of a new computer lab with thirty new computers donated from Sopra Steria. The occasion was expectedly joyous. There were celebrations, speeches and all-too-necessary ribbon cutting ceremony. A fantastic moment that meant something to every member of the school, teacher or student.

As twenty 13-year-old children filed into the room and unwrapped the last remaining plastic from the screens and keyboards of the newly installed computers. The excitement of the girls ready to use these new machines was palpable. Great, right? The next few moments were like a sucker-punch to something I really ought to have expected. It started with a moment’s hesitation from a young girl finding the power button. Then a look of confusion from another trying to left-click a mouse. Perhaps the most basic of tasks for a child that age. The only thing was – this was the first time that any girl in that room had touched a computer, ever. And for some reason, it was as if someone had told me the sky had fallen down. Obvious when you think about it, but near unthinkable for any child in the UK today.

After a quick breath, I went and sat with two girls, Yashika and Pooja. They had opened Microsoft Word and it was great to see their teamwork as they hunted for the letters on the keyboard, as our very own Gayathri Mohan took them through their ABCs. Within a few minutes, Pooja had moved her second hand onto the keyboard as she began to type sentences. Computers are a absolute necessity in the modern working world and in some government schools here the may be only one or two computers for several thousand children. Some do not have computer access of any kind. For such a reasonable investment, the lives of thousands of children, their families and future families can be changed completely.

Many things we take for granted are new to girls like Yashika and Pooja. It’s a familiar feeling to feel passionate about tech and I hope to continue to be able to contribute to bringing these new opportunities to them. This trip has shown me the individual lives being changed from the Sopra Steria India CSR programmes. It’s hard to fathom that yearly 70,000 children are introduced to tech through these schools, provided with free lunches, access to drinking water and toilet facilities, among the many other initiatives. A big thank you to the team for guiding us round and allowing us to share in these moments.

Gender, AI and automation: How will the next part of the digital revolution affect women?

Automation and AI are already changing the way we work, and there is no shortage of concern expressed in the media, businesses, governments, labour organisations and many others about the resulting displacement of millions of jobs over the next decade.

However, much of the focus has been at the macro level, and on the medium and long-term effects of automation and AI.  Meanwhile, the revolution is already well underway, and its impact on jobs is being felt now by a growing number of people.

The wave of automation and AI that is happening now is most readily seen in call centres, among customer services, and in administrative and back-office functions.  Much of what we used to do was by phone – talking directly to a person. We can now use not only companies’ websites in self-serve platforms, but interact with bots in chat windows and text messages. Cashiers and administrative assistants are being replaced by self-service check-outs and robot PA’s. The processing of payroll and benefits, and so much of finance and accounting has also been automated, eliminating the need for many people to do the work…

…eliminating the need for many women to do the work, in many cases.

A World Economic Forum report, Towards a Reskilling Revolution, estimated that 57% of the 1.4 million jobs that will be lost to automation belong to women. This displacement is not only a problem for these women and their families, but could also have wider negative ramifications for the economy.  We know that greater economic participation by women, not less, is what the economy needs: it could contribute $250b to the UK’s GDP .

Both the economic and ethical solution is in reskilling our workers. Businesses and economies benefit from a more highly skilled workforce. Society is enriched by diversity and inclusion.  Individuals moving to new jobs (those that exist now and those that we haven’t yet imagined) may even be more fulfilled in work that could be more interesting and challenging.  Moreover, the WEF report suggests that many of the new jobs will come with higher pay.

But there are two things we need to bear in mind as we do the work of moving to the jobs of tomorrow:

  1. Our uniquely human skills: Humans are still better at creative problem solving and complex interactions where sensitivity, compassion and good judgment play a role, and these skills are used all the time in the kinds of roles being displaced. In business processes, humans are still needed to identify problems before they spread too far (an automated process based on bad programming will spread a problem faster than a human-led process; speed is not always an advantage).  AI will get better at some of this, but the most successful operators in the digital world of the future will be the ones who put people at the centre of their digital strategies.  Valuing the (too-long undervalued) so-called soft skills that these workers are adept at, and making sure these are built in to the jobs of the future, will pay dividends down the road.
  2. Employment reimagined: To keep these women in the workforce, contributing to society and the economy, we must expand the number of roles that offer part-time and flexible working options. One reason there are so many women doing these jobs is because they are offered these options. And with women still taking on most of the domestic and caring responsibilities, the need for a range of working arrangements is not going away anytime soon.  The digital revolution is already opening discussion of different models of working, with everything from providing people with a Universal Basic Income, to the in-built flexibility of the Gig Economy, but simpler solutions on smaller scales can be embraced immediately.  For example, Sopra Steria offers a range of flexible working arrangements and is making full use of digital technology to support remote and home working options.

Women are not the only people affected by the current wave of automation and AI technology.  Many of the jobs discussed here are also undertaken by people in developing countries, and those where wages are lower, such as India and Poland.  The jobs that economies in those countries have relied on, at least in part,may not be around much longer in their current form.

Furthermore, automation and AI will impact a much wider range of people in the longer term.  For example, men will be disproportionately impacted by the introduction of driverless cars and lorries, because most taxi and lorry drivers are men.

Today, on International Women’s Day 2018, though, I encourage all of us in technology to tune in to the immediate and short-term impacts and respond with innovative actions, perhaps drawing inspiration from previous technological disruptions.   Let’s use the encouraging increased urgency – as seen through movements such as #Time’sUp and #MeToo – to address gender inequality while also working on technology-driven changes to employment.  Let us speed up our efforts to offer more jobs with unconventional working arrangements, and to prepare our workers for the jobs of tomorrow.  Tomorrow is not that far off, after all.

Jen Rodvold is Head of Sustainability & Social Value Solutions.  She founded the Sopra Steria UK Women’s Network in 2017 and is its Chair.  She has been a member of the techUK Women in Tech Council and the APPG for Women & Enterprise.  She recently led the development of the techUK paper on the importance of Returners Programmes to business, which can be found here.  Jen is interested in how business and technology can be used as forces for good.

Why Apprenticeships?

by Sara Keegan, Early Careers Recruiter

I started working on apprenticeships for Sopra Steria following the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in 2017. Sopra Steria had been recruiting apprentices since 2012 so the introduction of this levy only enabled us to grow and continue to offer apprenticeships to anyone at any level, from those at the start of their career to those who wish to change the direction of their career and learn new skills.

My role as an Early Careers Recruiter covers everything from showcasing what opportunities we have available, to keeping in touch with our apprentices throughout their careers. I can honestly say I love my job.  I am passionate about developing the apprenticeship scheme and the opportunities it offers. At a recent forum delivered by our training provider, the question raised to all of us was “Why Apprenticeships?” For me that’s an easy one to answer.

University is drilled into students and parents as being the only option to succeed in a career, but you could do a degree on an apprenticeship, gain commercial experience within the professional world AND be debt free!! Apprenticeships ensure that we are opening up the potential career paths into the tech industry.

Regardless of the levy being introduced, development among young talent is something that Sopra Steria are heavily driving. We are invested in developing talent, from new recruits to reskilling existing staff.  Apprenticeships play an important role within the company and will provide skilled workers for the future. For many, if you are thinking about a career change and learning a new skill it can be daunting to start again. Instead having on-the-job learning, mentoring and a buddy system, you will get to study with our award winning Apprentice training partners to gain Industry recognised qualifications.

It has opened my eyes to the wonderful world of apprenticeships and I want to help spread the word and remove preconceived notions of apprenticeships. This is the new wave of apprentices, working in an innovative industry. Being agile is a skill echoed in our workplace and one that all our apprentices find is second nature. As they learn they apply it directly to their roles, seeing first-hand what works and adapting their tact if not.

We will have a number of exciting positions throughout 2018, so keep updated on our apprenticeship page.  If you’re keen to learn and are passionate about technology, find out more by dropping us an email to early.careers@soprasteria.com

Containers: Power & Scale

by Richard Hands, Technical Architect

In my last blog post, we looked at the background of Containers. In this piece, we will explore what they can do and their power to deliver modern microservices.

What can they do?

Think of containers on a ship.  This is the most readily used visual analogy for containers. A large quantity of containers, all holding potentially different things, but all sitting nice and stable on a single infrastructure platform, gives a great mental picture to springboard from.

Containers are to Virtual Machines, what Virtual Machines were to straight physical hardware.  They are a new layer of abstraction, which allows us to get more ‘bang for our buck’.  In the beginning, we had dedicated hardware, which performed its job well, but in order to scale your solution you had to buy more hardware. This was difficult and expensive. Along came Virtual Machines, which allowed us to utilise much more commoditised hardware, and scale up within that, by adding more instances of a VM, but again, this still came with quite a cost.

To spin up a new VM, you have to ensure that you have enough remaining hardware on the VM servers. If you are using subscription or licensed operating systems, you have to consider that etc.  Now along comes containers. These containers literally contain only the pieces of code, and libraries necessary, to run their particular application. They rely on the underlying Infrastructure of the machine they are running on (be it physical or virtual).  We can typically run 10-20x more containers PER HOST than if we were to try putting the same application directly on the VM, and scale up by scaling the number of VM’s.

Orchestration for power

Containers help us solve the problems of today in far more bite-sized chunks than ever before.  They lend themselves perfectly to microservices.  Being able to write a microservice, and then build a container that holds just that microservice and its supporting architecture, be it spring boot, wildfly swarm, vertex, etc., gives us an immense amount of flexibility for development.  The problem comes when you want to orchestrate all of the microservices into a cohesive application, and add in scalability, service reliability, and all of the other pieces that a business requires to run successfully.  Trying to do all of this by hand would be an incomprehensible challenge.

There is a solution however, and it comes in the form of Kubernetes.

Kubernetes is an open-source platform designed to automate deploying, scaling, and operating application containers.” (http://kubernetes.io)

Kubernetes gives us a container run environment that allows us to declaratively, rather than imperatively define our run requirements for our application.  Again let’s look back to our older physical or VM models for the imperative definition:

“I need to run my application on that server.”

“I need a new server to run my application on, and it must have x memory and y disk”

This approach always requires justifications, and far more thought around HA considerations such as failover, as we are specifying what we want our application to run on.

Most modern applications, being stateless by design, and certainly containers, don’t generally require that level of detail of the hardware that they are running on. They simply don’t care as they’re designed to be small discrete components which work together with others.  The declarations look more like:

“I want 10 copies of this container running to ensure that I’ve got sufficient load coverage, and I don’t want more than 2 down at any one time.”

“I want 10 copies of this container running, but I want a capability to increase that if cpu or memory usage exceeds x% for y% time, and then return to 10 once load has fallen back below z

These declarations are far more about the level of application service that we want to provide, than about hardware, which in a modern commoditised market, is how things should be.

Kubernetes is the engine, which provides this facility but also so much more. For example with Kubernetes we can declare that we want x and y helper processes co-located with our application, so that we are building composition whilst preserving one application per container.

Auto scaling, load balancing, health checks, replication, storage systems, updates, all of these things can be managed for our container run environment by Kubernetes.  Overall, it is a product that requires far more in depth reading than I can provide in a simple blog post, so I shall let you go and read at http://kubernetes.io

Last thoughts

To conclude, it is evident that containers have already changed the shape of the IT world, and will continue to do so at an exponential pace.  With public, hybrid, and private cloud computing becoming ‘the norm’ for both organisations, and even governments, containers will be the shift which helps us break down the barriers from traditional application development into a true microservices world. Container run systems will help us to break down the old school walls of hardware requirements, thus freeing development to provide true business benefit.

Follow Richard Hands on Twitter to keep up to date with his latest thoughts.

Blockchain in a post GDPR World

Blockchain’s explosive growth has had businesses all over the globe scrambling to invest. But with GDPR fast approaching, how will an unchangeable database cope with the right to be forgotten?

How do you inflate your share price by 400% in a day? The answer is simple: add the word blockchain to your company’s name. As absurd as these figures seem, this is actually what happened last October to venture capitalist firm On-line Plc, following their decision to alter their name to On-line Blockchain Plc.

Olivia Green - Article

This shocking report is an accurate reflection of the current level of hype surrounding this new technology, with companies left, right and centre moving to adopt blockchain. A reported 57% of large UK corporations now have immediate plans to implement blockchain into their infrastructure by the end of 2018, while demand for blockchain specialists has nearly tripled in the last year alone. But while organisations have been avidly investing in this new phenomenon, they have also (rather more reluctantly) been preparing for an equally important, but slightly less exciting, development in the tech world: GDPR.

Much of the hype surrounding blockchain has been garnered because it is an immutable method of storing information- meaning that once information is loaded onto the blockchain, it cannot be edited or deleted. However, come May 2018, this unique feature may bring more pain than joy to businesses, as one of the most significant clauses in GDPR comes into effect: the right to be forgotten. This stipulates that individuals have the right to insist that organisations erase any personal information they hold on them. Apply this clause to blockchain, and the result is a non-compliant system and a £17 million fine. So what options do businesses have?

Edit the uneditable

One answer is to change blockchain itself. Accenture, for example, have recently patented an “editable” version of blockchain, which can be altered under certain circumstances by pre-ordained parties- a modification that could be easily moulded into being GDPR compliant and, at first sight, an appealingly easy solution.

However, there are some problems with this approach. As critics have pointed out, one of blockchain’s key (and unique) values is its immutability. It is this feature, making it immune to certain kinds of malicious interference such as misappropriation of assets or fraudulent financial reporting, that gives it so much appeal. By allowing even the possibility of interference, its trustworthiness as an absolute source of information is diminished. For organisations such as banks and other financial institutions, who are anxious to utilise the power of blockchain to build trust and protect against this kind of interference, an “editable blockchain” is unlikely to be a satisfactory solution.

Legal loopholes

For those who are either unwilling or unable to adopt an editable model, legal solutions may be sufficient. GDPR itself offers no explanation as to what “erasure” actually constitutes, and, while this might seem obvious at first sight, it could be an opportunity.  In the past, for example, some authorities have ruled that encryption can legally be equal to deletion- that is, if data is irreversibly encrypted, it is considered to be erased.  It is possible to apply mechanisms like this to data stored on blockchain, via encrypting pieces of data and then “losing” the decryption key- effectively meaning that the information can never be read.

However, this is a risky solution for organisations. As the data is not actually deleted in this process, but simply rendered inaccessible, it may be vulnerable to future technological developments able to break into its encryption (quantum computing, for example). With this in mind, it is likely that European authorities will insist on a strictly all-or-nothing interpretation of data deletion- meaning that relying on mechanisms such as encryption to achieve compliance would be dangerous.

Going off-grid

If neither of these options suffices, businesses can take a more extreme route: remove personal data from the blockchain completely. This does not necessarily mean disposing of blockchain too- one possible workaround, described in more depth here, reduces blockchain to a simple “access control medium”; instead of storing personal information on the chain, links to external databases containing said information can be placed in blocks. As the rules of blockchain no longer apply in these external databases, any information stored like this could be freely deleted or changed at will. The benefits of this approach are clear- it allows for full, uncontested erasure of data, while still retaining some of the functionality of blockchain.

However, as with other options, this is still not a wholly satisfying solution. It creates an inefficient, complex process, and reduces transparency over who is accessing personal data and how- paradoxically creating even more hurdles to GDPR compliance, which also requires that organisations must have accessible and transparent processes for data management. Additionally, removing data from the immutable environment of blockchain gives rise to the same problems faced by Accenture’s “editable blockchain”; external databases can be altered or subjected to fraudulent interference, and so the trustworthiness of the system is undermined.

An uncertain future

So where does this leave organisations who use blockchain? The answer, at this stage, is frustratingly unclear. Every solution detailed above involves either sacrificing the functionality (and benefits) of blockchain or risking the security of personal data. The latter is hardly an attractive option, and if organisations must transform the blockchain beyond recognition to become compliant with GDPR, it begs the question- what is the point in using the blockchain at all? Yet it is hardly practical for authorities to demand that organisations simply stop using blockchain, given its soaring popularity, proven benefits and widespread adoption.

In ethical terms, Blockchain’s immutability is a paradox: on the one hand, it helps to prevent corruption, fraud and theft; on the other, it removes the individual’s rights over his or her personal information. This paradox makes it a complicated system to legislate effectively for, and the current tensions are symptomatic of lawmakers’ struggles to keep up with new developments in the fast-paced and ever-changing world of technology. In this case, it may not just be businesses that need to adapt; legislators too may need to take an iterative and flexible approach to GDPR.

Come May 2018, reconciling GDPR and blockchain will likely be just one challenge among many for both corporations and legislators. Yet as blockchain becomes ever more tightly wound into the infrastructure of major organisations around the globe, it is not a challenge that either can afford to ignore.