Activities of Andrus ANSIP related to 2021/0106(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Artificial Intelligence Act (debate)
Amendments (25)
Amendment 311 #
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,
Amendment 348 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) A Union legal framework laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence is therefore needed to foster the development, use and uptake of artificial intelligence in the internal market that at the same time meets a high level of protection of public interests, such as health and safety and the protection of fundamental rights, as recognised and protected by Union law. To achieve that objective, rules regulating the placing on the market and putting into service of certain AI systems should be laid down, thus ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and allowing those systems to benefit from the principle of free movement of goods and services. By laying down those rules as well as measures in support of innovation with a particular focus on SMEs and start-ups, this Regulation supports the objective of the Union of being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence, as stated by the European Council33 , and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament34 . _________________ 33 European Council, Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) – Conclusions, EUCO 13/20, 2020, p. 6. 34 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL).
Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The notion of AI system should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. Therefore, the term AI system should be defined in line with internationally accepted definitions. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the softwareAI systems, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectives, to generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be it in air physical or digital dimensionenvironment. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and be used on a stand- alone basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to– date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission to amend that list. In order to ensure alignment of definitions on an international level, the European Commission should engage in a dialogue with international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), should their definitions of the term ‘AI system’ be adjusted.
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this Regulation should be defined functionally, as an AI system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes or types of biometric data used. Considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used, as well as the different risks involved, a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. In the case of ‘real-time’ systems, the capturing of the biometric data, the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously, near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. In this regard, there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this Regulation on the ‘real- time’ use of the AI systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘Real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near- ‘live’ material, such as video footage, generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. In the case of ‘post’ systems, in contrast, the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. This involves material, such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices, which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned. The notion of remote biometric identification system shall not include authentification and verification systems whose purpose is to confirm, based on prior consent, that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be or to confirm the identity of a natural person for the purpose of having access to a service, a device or premises.
Amendment 393 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In light of their digital nature, certain AI systems should fall within the scope of this Regulation even when they are neither placed on the market, nor put into service, nor used in the Union. This is the case for example of an operator established in the Union that contracts certain services to an operator established outside the Union in relation to an activity to be performed by an AI system that would qualify as high-risk and whose effects impact natural persons located in the Union. In those circumstances, the AI system used by the operator outside the Union could process data lawfully collected in and transferred from the Union, and provide to the contracting operator in the Union the output of that AI system resulting from that processing, without that AI system being placed on the market, put into service or used in the Union. To prevent the circumvention of this Regulation and to ensure an effective protection of natural persons located in the Union, this Regulation should also apply to providers and users of AI systems that are established in a third country, to the extent the output produced by those systems is used in the Union. Nonetheless, to take into account existing arrangements and special needs for cooperation with foreign partners with whom information and evidence is exchanged, this Regulation should not apply to public authorities of a third country and international organisations when acting in the framework of international agreements concluded at national or European level for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with its Member States. Such agreements have been concluded bilaterally between Member States and third countries or between the European Union, Europol and other EU agencies and third countries and international organisations. This exception should nevertheless be limited to trusted countries and international organizations that share the Union’s values.
Amendment 399 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12 a) This Regulation should not undermine research and development activity and should respect freedom of science. It is therefore necessary to exclude from its scope AI systems specifically developed and put into service for the sole purpose of scientific research and development and to ensure that the Regulation does not otherwise affect scientific research and development activity on AI systems. As regards product oriented research activity by providers, the provisions of this Regulation should apply insofar as such research leads to or entails placing of an AI system on the market or putting it into service. Under all circumstances, any research and development activity should be carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
Amendment 404 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 b (new)
Recital 12 b (new)
(12 b) Given the complexity of the value chain for AI systems, it is essential to clarify the role of persons who may contribute to the development of AI systems covered by this Regulation, without being providers and thus being obliged to comply with the obligations and requirements established herein. It is necessary to clarify that general purpose AI systems - understood as AI systems that are able to perform generally applicable functions such as image/speech recognition, audio/video generation, pattern detection, question answering, translation etc. - should not be considered as having an intended purpose within the meaning of this Regulation, unless those systems have been adapted to a specific intended purpose that falls within the scope of this Regulation. Initial providers of general purpose AI systems should therefore only have to comply with the provisions on accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity as laid down in Art. 15 of this Regulation. If a person adapts a general purpose AI application to a specific intended purpose and places it on the market or puts it into service, it shall be considered the provider and be subject to the obligations laid down in this Regulation. The initial provider of a general purpose AI application shall, after placing it on the market or putting it to service, and without compromising its own intellectual property rights or trade secrets, provide the new provider with all essential, relevant and reasonably expected information that is necessary to comply with the obligations set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended to distort human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. SuchIn particular, AI systems that deploy subliminal components individualthat natural persons cannot perceive or, that exploit the vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do soany groups,or that use purposefully manipulative techniques with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person or to their rights or to the values of the Union should be prohibited. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human- machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
Amendment 430 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended towith the objective to or the effect of distorting human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are reasonably likely to occur, should be forbidden. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacitiesspecific groups of persons due to their age, disabilities, social or economic situation. They do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human- machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
Amendment 515 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)
Recital 24 a (new)
Amendment 534 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) As regards AI systems that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, falling within the scope of certain Union harmonisation legislation, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk under this Regulation if the product in question undergoes the conformity assessment procedure in order to ensure compliance with essential safety requirements with a third-party conformity assessment body pursuant to that relevant Union harmonisation legislation. In particular, such products are machinery, toys, lifts, equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, radio equipment, pressure equipment, recreational craft equipment, cableway installations, appliances burning gaseous fuels, medical devices, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices.
Amendment 546 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Technical inaccuracies of AI systems intended for the remote biometric identification of natural persons can lead to biased results and entail discriminatory effects. This is particularly relevant when it comes to age, ethnicity, sex or disabilities. Therefore, ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems should be classified as high-risk, except for verification or authentification systems whose sole purpose is to confirm that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be, and systems that are used to confirm the identity of a natural person for the sole purpose of having access to a service, a device or premises. In view of the risks that they pose, both types of remote biometric identification systems should be subject to specific requirements on logging capabilities and human oversight.
Amendment 554 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) As regards the management and operation of critical infrastructure, it is appropriate to classify as high-risk the AI systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of road traffic and the supply of water, gas, heating and electricity, and internet, since their failure or malfunctioning may put at risk the life and health of persons at large scale and lead to appreciable disruptions in the ordinary conduct of social and economic activities.
Amendment 563 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) AI systems used for making autonomous decisions or materially influencing decisions in employment, workers management and access to self- employment, notably for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions on promotion and termination and for task allocation, monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. Such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this Regulation. Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy.
Amendment 576 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited scale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small-scale providerSMEs and start-ups for their own use. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they may have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non- discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural persons. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high- risk since they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property.
Amendment 599 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts andor the law and infor applying the law to a concrete set of facts. Such qualification should not extend, however, to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks or allocation of resources.
Amendment 613 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) To mitigate the risks from high-risk AI systems placed or otherwise put into service on the Union market for users and affected persons, certain mandatory requirements should apply, taking into account the intended purpose of the use of the system and according to the risk management system to be established by the provider. These requirements should be objective-driven, fit to purpose, reasonable and effective, without adding undue regulatory burdens or costs on operators.
Amendment 713 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
Recital 70
(70) Certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons or to generate content may pose specific risks of impersonation or deception irrespective of whether they qualify as high-risk or not. In certain circumstances, the use of these systems should therefore be subject to specific transparency obligations without prejudice to the requirements and obligations for high-risk AI systems. In particular, natural persons should be notified that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use or where the content is part of an obviously artistic, creative or fictional cinematographic work. Moreover, natural persons should be notified when they are exposed to an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system. Such information and notifications should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Further, users, who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, places or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, should disclose, in an appropriate, clear and visible manner, that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin.
Amendment 720 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71
Recital 71
(71) Artificial intelligence is a rapidly developing family of technologies that requires novel forms of regulatory oversight and a safe space for experimentation, while ensuring responsible innovation and integration of appropriate safeguards and risk mitigation measures. To ensure a legal framework that is innovation-friendly, future-proof and resilient to disruption, national competent authorities from one or more Member States should be encouraged to establish artificial intelligence regulatory sandboxes to facilitate the development and testing of innovative AI systems under strict regulatory oversight before these systems are placed on the market or otherwise put into service. Member States should ensure that the regulatory sandboxes have the adequate financial and human resources for their proper functioning.
Amendment 733 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Recital 73
(73) In order to promote and protect innovation, it is important that the interests of small-scaletart-ups and SME providers and users of AI systems are taken into particular account. To this objective, Member States should develop initiatives, which are targeted at those operators, including on awareness raising and information communication. Moreover, the specific interests and needs of small-scale providerSMEs and start-ups shall be taken into account when Notified Bodies set conformity assessment fees. Translation costs related to mandatory documentation and communication with authorities may constitute a significant cost for providers and other operators, notably those of a smaller scale. Member States should possibly ensure that one of the languages determined and accepted by them for relevant providers’ documentation and for communication with operators is one which is broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border users.
Amendment 773 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 85
Recital 85
(85) In order to ensure that the regulatory framework can be adapted where necessary, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend the techniques and approaches referred to in Annex I to define AI systems, the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II, the high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III, the provisions regarding technical documentation listed in Annex IV, the content of the EU declaration of conformity in Annex V, the provisions regarding the conformity assessment procedures in Annex VI and VII and the provisions establishing the high-risk AI systems to which the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation should apply. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including with industry, civil society, other stakeholders, and at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making58 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. _________________ 58 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 802 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(e a) measures in support of innovation with a particular focus on SMEs and start-ups, including the setting up of regulatory sandboxes and the reduction of regulatory burdens.
Amendment 1208 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts whichthat are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected;
Amendment 1614 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall be such that any relevant residual risk associated with each hazard as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is judged acceptable, provided that the high- risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user.
Amendment 2139 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission, when preparing the common specifications referred to in paragraph 1, shall gather the views of relevant stakeholders, including industry, start-ups, and SMEs, and of relevant bodies or expert groups established under relevant sectorial Union law.