Yes

Yes, IRIS may trigger GDPR Article 22 if its alerts lead to automated decisions with significant effects (e.g., warnings, vehicle intervention). In such cases, users may have the right to meaningful information about the logic behind decisions and the ability to challenge them.

Yes—if IRIS autonomously generates alerts that have legal or similarly significant effects on the user (e.g., disciplinary action, driving restrictions), it would likely trigger GDPR Article 22, requiring a meaningful explanation, human oversight, and the ability to contest the decision.

Yes

IRIS mainly provides alerts rather than making legal decisions, so it likely does not directly trigger Article 22 protections. Drivers still control their actions. However, users should still be given simple explanations about how alerts work to support transparency and trust.

Yes, if IRIS generates decisions or alerts with legal or similarly significant effects on users, it would likely trigger the GDPR Article 22 right to an explanation for automated decision-making.

Yes it does

IRIS triggers Article 22 only if its alerts lead to automatic, consequential outcomes (like pay cuts) without a human manager reviewing the context first.

IRIS may trigger GDPR Article 22 if its outputs constitute automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects on drivers. If IRIS merely provides advisory alerts (e.g. “possible drowsiness detected”) and the driver retains full control, Article 22 may not strictly apply. However, if IRIS: Automatically triggers interventions (e.g. vehicle slowdown, alerts reported to employers or insurers), or Influences decisions with significant safety, legal, or employment consequences, then it could fall within Article 22’s scope. In such cases, users would be entitled to: Meaningful information about the logic involved, An explanation of the decision, The ability to contest or override the decision. Even if Article 22 does not strictly apply, transparency obligations under Articles 13–15 GDPR would still require clear explanations of how IRIS works and its limitations.

Yes, potentially. If IRIS alerts or make decisions that have legal significant documents it falls under GDPR

Maybe

Possibly but not automatically

Yes. Since the models are still being scrutinised for issues around being biased, we can also assume it generates false positives and hence a major reason why users should have rights to an explanation

YES

Yes, I do.

Yes. Transparency is very important here for legal and ethical reasons. Plus, in the event that the system needs to do the update. People can give feedback to improve the system which may result in less events that go wrong. A beta test should be provided.

Yes + transparency may also increase levels of consent given for usage.

Absolutely, yes. Transparency is key to support public trust

I like to distinguish between "opening the black box" and "providing meaningful explanations. Users dont need the mathematical details of a Vision Transformer, but they should be told something like "the alert was triggered because the system detected prolonged eye closure, etc"

Yes, people should have meaningful explanations, especially when an alert affects safety or driving control. The explanation should be practical and human-readable rather than a technical model summary.

Yes, explanation rights matter because users need to understand why the system reacted and how to challenge errors. This is especially important if the alert affects driving control or insurance consequences.

Users should receive simple explanations, such as which signal pattern triggered the alert. This supports trust and allows review when the system behaves unexpectedly.

Yes, explanations should be available in plain language so drivers understand why a warning was triggered. This also supports accountability and post-incident review.

Users should have a right to a clear explanation, particularly after a warning or intervention. That explanation should be understandable to non-experts.

Yes, people should be told why the system issued a warning and what signal triggered it. Meaningful explanation is part of trustworthy deployment.

Yes, explanations are important because drivers should know why the system interrupted or warned them. A meaningful explanation can help with trust and error correction.

Users deserve explanations that connect the alert to the signal the system used. That can be done without exposing proprietary details.

Users should receive simple explanations, such as which signal pattern triggered the alert. This supports trust and allows review when the system behaves unexpectedly.

Yes, people should be told why the system issued a warning and what signal triggered it. Meaningful explanation is part of trustworthy deployment.

Yes

Yes - Give the true positives.

Yes

Yes, drivers should have a right to explain otherwise this technology would strive the driver of their personal agency - it is unlikely that the facial recognition system and heart rate detection could be 100% accurate in all circumstances and therefore if a driver was forced to pull over and then could not have the chance to explain their reasoning against the decision it would be rather unfair.

Definitely: should be explainable by design. This may help the project team, to reduce false alarms, including if users can comment/feedback on those explanations.

Yes. There needs to be an explainability element.