Accountability and Written Policies for AI Systems
Is this legally binding?
Guidance. Voluntary guidance. Best practice, not obligation, until a contract or a regulator cites it.
GUIDANCE interpreting binding ss 11-12: organisations using AI Systems should include relevant practices and safeguards (fairness, reasonableness, data quality, security) in written policies, made available to individuals, pre-emptively, not only on request.
From the source
“Organisations that make use of AI Systems should be transparent and include in their written policies relevant practices and safeguards to achieve fairness and reasonableness”
paras 10.1-10.6
What this connects to
3 relations. Official relations are the ones the source documents state; anything marked GAGE analysis is our reading, not an agency's.
Part of2
- ObligationAccountability Obligation (s 11)Binding
Guideline interprets binding PDPA provision; guideline itself is not legally binding
- ObligationPolicies and Practices Obligation (s 12)Binding
Guideline interprets binding PDPA provision; guideline itself is not legally binding
Cited by1
- SectionPart IV, Deployment: Collection and Use of Personal Data in AI SystemsGuidance
Structural decomposition of the source instrument
Verified against the official source on 2026-08-17. GAGE is not affiliated with or endorsed by any agency named here, and nothing on this page is legal advice. How this is built and checked.