35 Amendments of Evelyne GEBHARDT related to 2020/2012(INL)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of an EU regulatory framework being applicable where consumers within the Union are users of or subject to an algorithmic system, irrespective of the place of establishment of the entities that develop, sell or employ the system; furthermore, believes that the rules set out should apply across the value chain, namely development, deployment and use of the relevant technologies and their components and for all developers, and should guarantee the highest level of consumer protection; proposes that these rules take into account the lessons drawn from the adaptation to Regulation (EU) 2016/6791a (GDPR), considered a global benchmark; considers the designation of a liable entity in the Union (such as authorised representative) important for its enforcement; __________________ 1aRegulation (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 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the framework should apply to algorithmic systems, including the fields of artificial intelligence (AI), internet of things (IoT), machine learning, deep learning, automated decision making processes and robotics; further notes that referral systems should be developed to help explain those systems to consumers whenever they present complexity or constitute decisions that impact their lives significantly;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that any future regulation should follow a differentiated risk-based approach, based on the potential harm for the individual as well as for society at large, taking into account the specific use context of the algorithmic system; legal obligations should gradually increase with the identified risk level; in the lowest risk category there should be no additional legala labelling obligations; algorithmic systems that may harm an individual, impact an individual’s access to resources, or concern their participation in society shall not be deemed to be in the lowest risk category; this risk- based approach should follow clear and transparent rules;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that the ethical principles should be the basis for a harmonised European system of risk classification and related legal obligations;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed in a timely, impartial, easily-readable, standardised and accessible manner about the existence, process, rationale, reasoning and possible outcome of algorithmic systems, about how to reach a human with decision- making powers, and about how the system’s decisions can be checked, meaningfully contested and corrected; recalls that humans must always be able to overrule automated decisions that are final and permanent;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed in a timely, impartial, easily-readable, standardised and accessible manner about the existence, the aims or purpose, process, rationale, reasoning and possible outcome and consequences for consumers of algorithmic systems, about how to reach a human with decision- making powers, and about how the system’s decisions can be checked, meaningfully contested and corrected;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes that a European legal framework for a system of risk classification and related legal obligations is required to ensure a uniform protection of European consumers;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines that the increased use of artificial intelligence requires a strong focus on digital security, as the large amount of data creates new risks of cyberattacks; calls on the Commission to develop clear guidelines for businesses and public agencies to take the necessary precautions when using artificial intelligence;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls for a uniform implementation of the system of risk classification and related legal obligations to ensure a level-playing field among the Member States and to prevent a fragmentation of the internal market;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Considers that AI, IoT, and other emerging technologies have enormous potential to deliver opportunities for consumers to have access to several amenities in many aspects of their lives alongside with better products and services, as well as to benefit from better market surveillance, as long as all applicable principles, conditions (including transparency and auditability), and regulations continue to apply;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls for the establishment of an Union-wide registration system for artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies to support the uniform and transparent implementation of the risk classification in the Union;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that the risk assessment of these technologies in light of ethical principles shall be complementary but not replace the risk assessment on the basis of objective criteria and in line with relevant sector- specific legislation applicable in different fields such, inter alia, as those of health, transport, employment, justice and home affairs, media, education and culture;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that, when it comes to filling the gaps on the practical implementation of ethical guidelines on algorithmic systems and connected technologies, models such as the so-called VCIO model (Values, Criteria, Indicators, Observables) should be studied and evaluated in terms of fitness for purpose; further considers that such models to concretise and implement AI system requirements, as well as to produce labels that allow companies to communicate the ethical properties of their products clearly and uniformly through a standardised risk matrix, could enhance consumer literacy, information, and awareness;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Considers that any artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies considered as high-risk from a compliance with ethical principles perspective shall not be classified as low- risk from a sector-specific legislation perspective;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the Union to establishment of a European market surveillance structure for algorithmic systems issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities;n the framework of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, which the Parliament proposed in its resolution of 16 February 20171a, issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities, monitoring the implementation of relevant EU legislation, addressing potential consumer protection issues, identifying standards for best practice, and, where appropriate, making recommendations for regulatory measures; __________________ 1aEuropean Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) (OJ C 252, 18.7.2018, p. 239).
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the Union to establish a European market surveillance structure for algorithmic systems issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities; emphasizes that Member States must develop risk-management strategies for AI in the context of their national market surveillance strategies.
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls for the designation by each Member State of a competent national authorityenforcement body(NEB) for monitoring the application of the provisions;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for the establishment of a European market surveillance board for algorithmic systems in the framework of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, to ensure a level playing field and to avoid fragmentation of the internal market, to decide with a qualified majority and by secret vote in case of different decisions on algorithmic systems used in more than one Member State, as well as at the request of the majority of the national authorities;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Believes that a European certification of ethical compliance should be designed in such a way as to inform consumers about the risk level of a product or a service with an algorithmic component as well as its trustworthiness in the light of the ethical principles and all other requirements based on relevant Union legislation;
Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses the need for national market surveillance authorities to be reinforced in terms of capacity, skills, and competences in AI, IoT and other related technologies, as well as knowledge about its specific risks;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Considers that a common European framework for the governance of these technologies prepared by the European Commission or another relevant institution, body, office or agency of the Union (such as a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, as called for below) designated for this task should be the basis for this governance in order to ensure a coherent European approach and prevent a fragmentation of the single market;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that these authorities shall cooperate with the authorities responsible for implementing sectorial legislation in order to identify technologies which are high-risk from an ethical perspective and in order to supervise the implementation of required and appropriate measures where such technologies are identified;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to follow- up on that request, especially in view of the added-value of having a body at Union level coordinating the mandates and actions of each national supervisory authority as referred to in the previous sub- section and drafting a common framework for the governance of the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point V – indent 3 a (new)
Annex I – part A – point V – indent 3 a (new)
- to draft a common framework for the governance of the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies to be implemented by the national supervisory authorities;
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 4
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 4
- to be responsible for establishimplementing standards for the governance of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including by liaising with the maximum possible number of stakeholders and civil society representatives.
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 4 a (new)
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 4 a (new)
- to cooperate with the authorities responsible for implementing sectorial legislation in order to identify technologies which are high-risk from an ethical perspective and in order to supervise the implementation of required and appropriate measures where such technologies are identified;
Amendment 400 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10
Annex I – part B – recital 10
(10) Notwithstanding the risk assessment carried out in relation to compliance with ethical principles, artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, should always be assessed as to their risk and subject to corresponding legal obligations on the basis of objective criteria and in line with relevant sector-specific legislation applicable in different fields such as those of health, transport, employment, justice and home affairs, media, education and culture.
Amendment 402 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10 a (new)
Annex I – part B – recital 10 a (new)
(10a) Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies considered as high-risk from a compliance with ethical principles perspective shall not be classified as low risk from a sector- specific legislation perspective.
Amendment 462 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 38
Annex I – part B – recital 38
(38) The effective application of the ethical principles laid down in this Regulation will largely depend on Member States’ appointment of an independent public authority to act as a supervisory authority. In particular, each national supervisory authority should be responsible for assessing and monitoring the compliance ofidentifying artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies considered a high-risk and for assessing and monitoring the compliance of these technologies in light of the obligations set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 464 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 39
Annex I – part B – recital 39
(39) Each national supervisory authority shall also carry the responsibility of regulating the governance of these technologies in accordance with a common framework prepared by the European Commission or another relevant institution, body, office or agency of the Union designated for this task. They therefore have an important role to play in promoting the trust and safety of Union citizens, as well as in enabling a democratic, pluralistic and equitable society.
Amendment 467 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 39 a (new)
Annex I – part B – recital 39 a (new)
(39a) National supervisory authorities shall cooperate with the authorities responsible for assessing and monitoring artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies and enforcing their compliance in the light of sectorial legislation in order to identify technologies which are high-risk from an ethical perspective and in order to supervise the implementation of required and appropriate measures where such technologies are identified;
Amendment 483 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 46
Annex I – part B – recital 46
(46) Action at Union level as set out in this Regulation would be best achieved through the establishment of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence. Such a body would be essential in coordinating the mandates and actions of the national supervisory authorities in each Member State, outlining objective criteria for the risk assessment of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, drafting a common framework for the governance of the development, deployment and use of these technologies, developing and issuing a certification of compliance with the ethical principles laid down in this Regulation, supporting regular exchanges with concerned stakeholders and civil society, promoting the Union’s approach through international cooperation and ensuring a consistent reply worldwide to the opportunities and risks inherent in these technologies.
Amendment 625 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 13 – paragraph 1
Annex I – part B – Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union shall comply with relevant governance standards establishdrafted by the European Commission or another relevant institution, body, office or agency of the Union designated for this task and implemented by the national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 14 in accordance with Union law, principles and values.
Amendment 634 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 1
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall designate an independent public authority to be responsible for monitoring the application of this Regulation (‘supervisory authority’). In accordance with Article 7(1) and (2), each national supervisory authority shall be responsible for assessing whether artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, developed, deployed and used in the Union are high-risk technologies in view of the ethical principles set out in this Regulation and, if so, for assessing and monitoring their compliance with the ethicalse principles set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 635 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Each national supervisory authority shall supervise the implementation of the legislation in force and, where applicable, the enforceable sectorial regulations arising when a technology is identified as a high-risk technology in view of the ethical principles set out in this Regulation. For this purpose, the supervisory authorities shall cooperate with the sectorial authorities in charge of assessing and monitoring artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies and enforcing their compliance in the light of sectorial legislation.