49 Amendments of Javi LÓPEZ related to 2020/2012(INL)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the Union is founded on the ethical values stated in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and those of the United Nations Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence- related efforts within the Union framework must respect these universal values whilst promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas rapid advances in contemporary scientific research and innovation in the fields of environment, health and food safety have raised a number of important ethical, legal and social issues that affect the relationship between science and society;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. Whereas environment, health and food safety research and innovation activities carried out in Europe must comply with ethical principles and relevant national, Union and international legislation, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights and its Supplementary Protocols1a; _________________ 1aArticle 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC Text with EEA relevance
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. Whereas Article 16 TFEU states that everyone has the right to the protection of their personal data; whereas Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation refers to the situation where data are only used by automated processing, and recognises the right of the data subject not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; stresses that the EU should play a global role in leading the way towards a credible and binding AI regulatory agenda rooted in democratic values; calls on the Union to assess the inherent AI-related risks with regard to the application of Union law, and foresee necessary adjustment and enforcement where needed; underlines that emerging technologies not covered by international law should be judged by the principle of humanity and the dictates of public conscience; underlines that the ethics of AI-enabled systems in defence must be assessed from the point of view of Human rights, and notably human safety, health and security, freedom, privacy, integrity and dignity;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas the artificial intelligence (AI) global leadership race, which will determine the source of ethical values and standards shaping the sector worldwide, is picking up the pace and the Union should set an example for the rest of the world;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; the framework must therefore indicate the likeliness of errors and inaccuracies to deployers for the deployment of AI technology; calls on the Union to assess the inherent AI-related risks with regard to the application of Union law, and foresee necessary adjustment and enforcement where needed;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that the geographical scope of such a framework should cover all the components of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union, including in cases where part of the technologies might be located outside the Union or not have a specific location;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines the need of constant monitoring of the use of AI; especially from the point of view of its advantages and disadvantages, as well as, its impact on the protection of Universal Human Rights;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recalls that the impact of AI systems should be considered not only from an individual perspective but also from the perspective of a society as a whole; calls to fully incorporate in a new framework, the human-centric approach based on the Communication on Building Trust in Human-Centric AI and the input obtained in the Ethics Guidelines prepared by the High-Level Expert Group on AI;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. Whereas AI solutions may benefit society in the areas of green transition, environment protection,and biodiversity protection, circular economy and waste management, climate change, energy management and efficiency, water and air quality, e.g. smart grids and electro-mobilityarth observation and risk management, among others;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. Whereas in its digital package published on 19 February 2020 the Commission states that ICT today accounts for between 5% and 9% of global electricity consumption and 2% of CO2 emissions and that the volume of data transferred and stored will continue to grow exponentially in the years to come; whereas the 2018 Joint Research Centre study “Artificial Intelligence/A European Perspective” estimates that data centres and data transmission could account for 3-4% of all power consumption of the Union;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls for establishing of synergies and networks between the various European research centres on AI as well as other multilateral fora, such as: Council of Europe, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD),the World Trade Organisation and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), in order to align their efforts and to better coordinate the developments of the AI technology;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. Whereas properly regulated AI would help guide efforts to achieve the UN SDGs and help reach the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. Whereas AI can be applied to almost any field in medicine: biomedical research, exemplified by the AI-discovered antibiotic Halicin or AI contributions to new cancer prevention, more precise diagnosis and new therapies, medical education, clinical decision-making, personalized medicine, psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, in revolutionizing robotic prostheses and support systems, telemedicine, telesurgery and the overall efficiency of the health systems;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Unionwhereby technology fully respects Human Rights and humans retain authority over automated decision- making systems, the Union needs a robust AI regulatory framework focused on security and defence, followsing a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, that its policies aim at preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. Whereas current policy and ethical guidelines for AI are lagging behind ethical challenges that must be identified and mitigated, since AI has tremendous capability to threaten patient preference, safety, and privacy; whereas the boundaries between the roles of physicianmedical professionals and carers and machines in patient care need to be outlined;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Member States and the European Commission to ensure that the algorithms used in defence systems, while keeping the necessary confidentiality, are governed by the principle of transparency, including a clear liability regime for the results of AI use; underlines that these algorithms must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that contains the inherent risks of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; the Union working together with the Member States must determine the appropriate liability regimes applicable to innovations in AI and other immersive technologies in the field of security and defence thus establishing a legal basis for accountability and traceability mechanisms, those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it material or immaterial, such as breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Recital F
Recital F
F. Whereas AI solutions may benefit society in the area of food safety and Farming 2.0, where the Union holds leadership in AI applications, especially in areas where water resources are scarce and climate change has severe impacts;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection and exploitation of operational datareliability standards, active monitoring and supervision as regards the collection and exploitation of operational data; AI systems and applications intended to extract and synthesise data, and extrapolate results therefrom to inform decisions for matters relating to defence and national security, must be specific in scope and comply with the provisions set out in the current regulatory framework in terms of gathering and processing data; stresses that AI applications designed to process data for intelligence purposes in defence related activities should comply with data processing standards to avoid risks of unintended surveillance or infringement of individual rights; believes that for high-risk applications of AI-enabled technologies like facial recognition which lack a definitive regulatory framework at the EU level, the Union must ensure that their development and deployment is rightful, proportional and respects the rights of individuals; stresses the importance of monitoring competent national law enforcement authorities which develop and deploy AI-enabled systems and technologies to maintain public order so as to mitigate the disproportional risks of predictive policing;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection and exploitation of operational data; draws attention to the need of careful analysis of the algorithms on which AI makes its decisions; emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of AI algorithms; notes the important distinction between transparency of algorithms and transparency of the use of algorithms;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines the importance of the “right to explanation” of any decision taken by automated processing, this is the right to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller, to express his or her point of view and to contest the decision taken by an automated system4a; states, therefore, that ultimately, humans should keep the responsibility for decision making, especially in sectors where there are high stakes and risks such as health; _________________ 4a Article 22 GDPR Regulation
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Notices the great risk of AI in the area of disinformation; underlines that, if not regulated, AI technologies might have ethically adverse effects by exploiting bias in data and algorithms that may lead to disinformation, creating information bubbles and exploiting biases incorporated into AI algorithms;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the need to adopt clear safety and security provisions and requirements, with proper certifications, for AI-systems in defence, and carry ourt constant monitoring, regular tests and verifications across the entire life cycle; underlines the necessity of ensuring compliance with applicable standards and obtained certifications where AI modifies e.g. through machine learning the functionality and behaviour of systems in which it is integrated, in order to ensure full traceability of decisions made with involvement of AI;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that overregulation may hamper AI sector innovation, especially for SMEs and Start-ups; considers that hindering the Union AI sector in delivering benefits of AI applications in e.g. healthcare, environment protection and food quality to the citizens, may also bear ethical weight, especially in the context of global competition, where securing full respect of Union ethical values may pose a challengereminds that beyond Union action, many third countries are working on their ethical frameworks and that there are multiple proposals at a global level; is aware that the main difficulty for ethical principles may lie in the application of such principles rather than in their existence especially in the context of global competition and of high risk sectors as healthcare; recalls, in this regard, that Parliament’s resolution of 16 February 2017 on Civil Law Rules on Robotics asked the Commission to consider the designation of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence that ensures a harmonised approach across the Union, develops common criteria and an application process relating to the granting of a European certificate of ethical compliance, and that addresses the new opportunities and challenges, in particular those of a cross-border nature, arising from ongoing technological developments;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights the fact that AI framework in defence and security should develop benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies; underlines that these criteria must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights that many of the proposals by countries which are not members of the Union and by international organizations revolve around common principles or concepts for AI, those being: human-centricness, trustworthiness, respect for human autonomy, harm prevention, equity and "no one left behind" and explicability; is of the opinion that an international ethical framework around these principles would be highly desirable; is concerned about AI progress and innovations leading to social inequality if no action is taken; calls therefore on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary measures to leave no one behind in the transition to a digital Europe, and to guarantee a fair, affordable and equal access to these innovations especially in areas such as healthcare;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresseds that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined domain of use and must be endowed withwhereby humans retain the abilitgency to detect and, disengage or diseactivate deployed systems should they move from their domain of use or engage in any escalatory or unintended action;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and, as there must be meaningful human control over any weapons system and human intent in the decision to use force; underlines that the human-in- the-loop principle must also be applied to the command and control of AI- enabled systems; stresses that AI-enabled systems must allow the military leadership to assume its full responsibility and exercise the necessary level of judgmentaccountability for the use of lethal force and exercise the necessary level of judgment, which cannot be endowed to machines as it must be based on distinction, proportionality and precaution, for taking lethal or large-scale destructive action bey means of such systems; recalls in this respect its position on a ban on the development, production and use of fully autonomous weapons systems enabling strikes to be carried out without meaningful human intervention;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that the EU must take the lead in promoting the establishment of international norms regarding the ethical and legal parameters of the development and use of fully autonomous, semi- autonomous and remotely operated lethal weapons systems; Member States should develop national strategies for the definition, status and use of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) towards a comprehensive strategy on the EU level;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, with the rapid development of AI and the uncertainty that lies ahead, a common Union AI ethical framework will expand an ecosystem of trust as defined in the Commission White Paper, whether in environment protection, healthcare or food safety applications, thus supporting the ecosystem of excellence in legal certainty and providing effective response to the challenges yet not defined in courtrooms, management meetings or scientific laboratories; points out that ethics is not made up of permanent principles, but has been changing over the course of various cultures and times; supports in this regard that the framework should be periodically reviewed to guarantee its applicability through time and new developments;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that the Union must promote understanding of the military implications of AI, of robotics and of autonomy; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI-enabled military capabilities;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Underlines, that despite its added value, AI comes with a number of weaknesses, one of them relating to all sorts of different types of biases; emphasises that AI technologies should clearly be void of any sort of profiling, especially regarding gender;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Strongly supports the Commission in establishing a common Union AI ethical framework to counter the shortcomings caused by AI internal market fragmentation, including environmental, healthcare, and food safety applications, and to prevent AI double standards across Member States for AI developed in Union and beyond, inter alia in areas such as consumer data management, protection and privacy in smart grids, waste management, equal access to services and technologies, patient-doctor relationship standards, data protection and privacy, civil liability in AI- assisted public healthcare, civil liability regarding autonomous vehicles or machinery;
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that in areas such as health, liability must ultimately lie with a natural or legal person; emphasizes the need for traceable and publicly available training data for algorithms;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI, which puts in jeopardyendangers the functioning of the internal market and the objective to ensure trustworthyreliable and secure development of AI in Europe; in this respect welcomes the inclusion of AI- related projects under the European Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); believes that the future European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) also offer well adapted frameworks for future AI- related projects that would help to better streamline Union efforts in this field; stresses that AI-related projects should be synchronized with the wider EU civilian programmes devoted to AI; notes that in line with the European Commission’s White Paper on AI (COM2020/65final) excellence and testing centres concentrating on research and development of AI in the field of security and defence should be established with vigorous specifications underpinning the participation of and investment from private stakeholders;
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Emphasises that patients should know when and how they are interacting with a human professional and when they are not; insists that patients should have the freedom to decide about this interaction and should be offered an alternative of equal standard;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Emphasises that the development of AI that respects fundamental rights and supports the public interest requires the strategic pooling and sharing of data in the EU between private and public entities, as well as the strengthening of an EU AI ecosystem, which involves public, private, and civil society stakeholders; calls on the European Commission to foster dialogue among Member States, researchers, academics, civil society actors and the private sector so as to have inclusive policymaking processes when it comes to defence-related AI regulations;
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for citizen and patient empowerment regarding their personal data and for securing the full enforcement of Union legal framework on data protection and privacy, relevant notably in the healthcare AI applications and related sensitive data, to strengthen the “Right to an explanation” foreseen in Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection Regulation, (GDPR))2 and higher interpretability requirements for high-risk AI; _________________ 2Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls on the Commission to present their "Reinforcement of the Skills Agenda", announced in the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence on the 19th February2020, as soon as possible - in order to ensure that everyone in Europe can benefit from the digital transformations of the EU economy;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Highlights, in the healthcare sector, that data originated from patients using AI technologies should fulfil all the privacy requirements as stipulated in the GDPR, and that by no means, the data generated should contribute to any kind of discrimination (known or novel); calls on the Commission and Member States to guarantee that data accessibility to private companies, such as health or life insurance companies, is prevented and that the “right to be forgotten” of patients is fully respected;
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the European Commission and on the VP/HR to present, also as part of an overall approach, a sectoral AI strategy for defence-related activities within the Union framework, that ensures both respect for citizens’ rights and EU’s strategic interests that should propose a consistent regulatory approach spanning from the inception of AI-enabled systems to their military uses; calls on these regulatory efforts to be supported by meaningful monitoring schemes, so that normative frameworks are not outplaced by technological development and new methods of warfare; calls on the Council, the European Commission and on the VP/HR to enter in a structured dialogue with the European Parliament to that end.
Amendment 153 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that the use of tracking and contact tracing technologies by public authorities during the COVID 19 crisis and other potential health emergencies might conflict with data protection; recalls in this regard the Commission Guidance on applications supporting the fight against the COVID 19 pandemic in relation to data protection and the need for proportionality, limitation in time, alignment with European values and respect of human dignity and fundamental rights;
Amendment 156 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Highlights that AI and robotics can bring numerous benefits to our environment, health and food safety as the dematerialisation of the economy makes the Union less dependent on raw materials or on the increased use of personalised medicine; underlines however, that their carbon footprint remains still high; calls on the Commission to carry out a study on the impact of AI technology’s carbon footprint and the positive and negative impacts of the transition to the use of AI technology by consumers; further calls on the Commission to include the footprint information in the common European Dataspace for Smart Circular Applications foreseen in the EU Action Plan on Circular Economy and to deal specifically with these technologies within the ICT key value chain of the above- mentioned plan;
Amendment 163 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for securing sufficient financing for the Union AI transformation; supports the ambitions laid out in the Commission White Paper to attract €200 billion of AI public and private investment in the next 10 years in the Union; welcomes the attention granted to deficits of AI ecosystems in less-developed regions and to the needs of SMEs and start-ups; calls on the Commission to facilitate geographically balanced access to allidentify public infrastructure and promote the prioritization of AI funding, in cluding for SMEs and start- upsimate change mitigation and adaptation, renewable energies and health; stresses that the new Union objectives must not diminish Union engagement in its long standing priorities, like the CAP or, Cohesion Policy., the Green Deal and the COVID19 Recovery Plan;