According to various actors (EDRi, Xnet, UOC...) this law is going to bring benefits but has gaps, especially in relation to the data economy. The lack of regularization of artificial intelligences obtained both in the marketing and conduct of conducts and in the surveillance of public space is noteworthy. In the case of conducts, the law should pay more attention to the artificial intelligences that can infer and produce in them the emotions of people through data taken from the physical condition of people, physiological processes, biology, etc. Also in artificial intelligences that help to chase, group and judge people in public space through their biometric characteristics.

Another idea linked to the latter and especially concerned about the agents working on human rights is the predictive police. That is, by analyzing the physiognomy of our bodies, by analyzing our personality, our political beliefs and those related to justice, and by projecting profiles to evaluate the risks and thereby the artificial intelligences that are created to make predictions of crimes, or of other problems that are to be avoided.

The image of a table of games comes to mind. Game board owners have all the power over what's done there, and lawmakers don't fully understand the game dynamics of that table, to the extent that all the knowledge is not shared. Therefore, in order to cope with this dynamic, we must have a dual strategy: on the one hand, we must continue to legislate, because with it we will understand the problem and, on the other, we must continue to promote the creation of new tables of play.