Activities of Angel DZHAMBAZKI related to 2020/2016(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters (debate)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which also applies to enforcement of the law and at all times;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the protection of personal data, in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation and other relevant legislation where applicable, applies at all times;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas artificial intelligence and related technologies are a priority for the Union, considering the fast-paced advances of the technology sector and the importance of being vigilant about the impact these will and already are having on the unique European intellectual property rights system; whereas a variety of sectors are already implementing the use of artificial intelligence and related technologies, e.g. robotics, transport and the healthcare sectors to name a few;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies willmay contribute to the reducing of crime rates, the use offacilitate certain procedures through its use in statistical data analytics in, crime analysis and prevention, and the operation of criminal justice systems; whereas the Union relies heavily on external data, which is the key factor for efficiency and optimal working conditions of AI-based algorithms, as well as foreign artificial intelligence providers;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas facial recognition software has been increasingly contentious and globally leading developer companies have halted all research over questions related to grave concerns over data protection violations and public safety concerns; whereas facial recognition and similar softwares, may have great potential for assisting the police and other authorities in enforcement as well as crime prevention and also lessening the administrative burden for criminal justice, in light of the manifold implications and cross-sector effects such software have, further discussion is needed; whereas the further development of European data and efforts to diminish the Union's dependency on foreign software developers, foreign data and AI-technologies based services will greatly improve insufficiencies when it comes to data protection and privacy;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the importance of considering the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems; stresses the importance of the human factor, which must always be the final decision-maker and the role of AI- technologies based software and applications should be a solely assisting one within the criminal system, whether in police enforcement or criminal justice; reiterates that biometric recognition softwares should only be deployed in clearly warranted situations and not become the standard;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the importance of being able to access AI-produced or AI-assisted outputs for notification procedures and the role of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention; recalls the importance of questions related to governance, transparency and accountability; further recalls the distinction between the use of AI and related technologies in crime prevention and criminal justice; stresses the subordinate role AI-technologies fulfil at all times;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Underlines the importance of auto-generated data using in evidence collection and analysis; recalls that, both in crime prevention and criminal justice, the cause for errors in or possible mis-use in data-input and -output analysis, as well as interpretation thereof, may be rooted in the human factor involved and calls therefore for a cautious approach when analysis the effectiveness and appropriateness of using AI-technologies in all decision-making processes;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Stresses its cautious approach to the use of biometric recognition softwares; highlights the ambiguity resulting from an inherent insufficiency when it comes to data protection, as well as infringements of data privacy; notes with concern the amalgamation of personal data on citizens in the European Union by foreign countries, through private sector developers and providers;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate these; suggests that an ad hoc cross-sectoral advisory group be set up, consisting of representatives of all actors and stakeholders involved, both at EU- and national level, to address specifically the issue of facial-recognition softwares, which are of particular importance in the current context of a global health pandemic; recommends that the Commission undertakes a thorough assessment of the impact of biometric recognition software on relevant EU legislation and present proposals for updating existing legislation where appropriate to the realities of artificial intelligence and related technologies overall;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can be delegated to AI and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs; stresses however, that the involvement of Member States is key and no efforts should be pursued that would undermine their competence in matters of defence and national security.
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Considers it of importance that the Commission undertake an overall assessment of the state of play throughout the Union, with regards to technical infrastructure and resources available for the effective introduction of AI-based technologies in their national frameworks, in accordance with the governing laws; highlights further the need to assess the levels of training and awareness, with regards to regional and national specificities; calls on the Commission to not only undertakes such an in-depth assessment and come forward with proposals to support Member States in their efforts but also come forward with proposals to update the existing legislative framework with regards to data protection and other relevant EU-legislation, to reflect the realities of AI- and related technologies;