[ParlTrack]

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
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 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.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Nicola BEER, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Andrus ANSIP, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems ~~intended to~~with 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 incapacities~~specific 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.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)

(17 a) AI systems used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf to predict the probability of a natural person to offend or to reoffend, based on profiling and individual risk-assessment hold a particular risk of discrimination against certain persons or groups of persons, as they violate human dignity as well as the key legal principle of presumption of innocence. Such AI systems should therefore be prohibited.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement should therefore be prohibited, except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is strictly necessary to achieve a substantial public interest, the importance of which outweighs the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA38 if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined in the law of that Member State. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionate to highly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. _________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to ensure that those systems are used in a responsible and proportionate manner, it is also important to establish that, in each of those three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, certain elements should be taken into account, in particular as regards the nature of the situation giving rise to the request and the consequences of the use for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned and the safeguards and conditions provided for with the use. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to appropriate limits in time and space, having regard in particular to the evidence or indications regarding the threats, the victims or perpetrator. The reference database of persons should be appropriate for each use case in each of the three situations mentioned above.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Each use of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to an express and specific authorisation by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of a Member State. Such authorisation should in principle be obtained prior to the use, except in duly justified situations of urgency, that is, situations where the need to use the systems in question is such as to make it effectively and objectively impossible to obtain an authorisation before commencing the use. In such situations of urgency, the use should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary and be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions, as determined in national law and specified in the context of each individual urgent use case by the law enforcement authority itself. In addition, the law enforcement authority should in such situations seek to obtain an authorisation as soon as possible, whilst providing the reasons for not having been able to request it earlier.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) Furthermore, it is appropriate to provide, within the exhaustive framework set by this Regulation that such use in the territory of a Member State in accordance with this Regulation should only be possible where and in as far as the Member State in question has decided to expressly provide for the possibility to authorise such use in its detailed rules of national law. Consequently, Member States remain free under this Regulation not to provide for such a possibility at all or to only provide for such a possibility in respect of some of the objectives capable of justifying authorised use identified in this Regulation.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) Actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In particular, if the AI system is not trained with high quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness, or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service, it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. Furthermore, the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular, where such AI systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of AI systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy, reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts, retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. In view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto, those high-risk AI systems should include in particular AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments, polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person, to detect ‘deep fakes’, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons, or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups, for profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. AI systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Abir AL-SAHLANI, Svenja HAHN, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 a (new)

(39 a) The use of AI systems in migration, asylum and border management should however not, at any point, be used by Member States or by the institutions or agencies of the Union to infringe on the principle of non- refoulement, the right to asylum or to circumvent international obligations under the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the Protocol of 31 January 1967.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Sandro GOZI, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 34

(34) ‘emotion recognition system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying or inferring emotions, thoughts or intentions of natural persons on the basis of their biometric or biometrics-based data;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 35

(35) ‘biometric categorisation system’ means an AI system for the purpose of assigning natural persons to specific categories~~, such as sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, ethnic origin or sexual or political orientation,~~ or inferring their characteristics and attributes on the basis of their biometric or biometrics-based data;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36

(36) ‘remote biometric identification system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying 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 of the user of the AI system whether the person will be present and can be identified , excluding verification/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;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system ~~that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in order to~~with the objective to or the effect of materially distorting a person’s behaviour in a manner that causes or is reasonably likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

(b) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of an individual, including characteristics of such individual’s known or predicted personality or social or economic situation, a specific group of persons due to their age~~, physical or mental~~ or disability, in order to materially distort the behaviour of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(c a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system for making individual risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess the risk of a natural person for offending or reoffending or for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of a natural person or on assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups of natural persons;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i

~~(i) the targeted search for specific potential victims of crime, including missing children;~~deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii

~~(ii) the prevention of a specific, substantial and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack;~~deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii

(iii) the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of a criminal offence referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA62 and punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years, as determined by the law of that Member State. _________________ 62 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Nicola BEER, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(d a) the use of an AI system for the general monitoring, detection and interpretation of private content in interpersonal communication services, including all measures that would undermine end-to-end encryption..

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. The use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall take into account the following elements: (a) the nature of the situation giving rise to the possible use, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm caused in the absence of the use of the system; (b) the consequences of the use of the system for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of those consequences. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall comply with necessary and proportionate safeguards and conditions in relation to the use, in particular as regards the temporal, geographic and personal limitations.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) the nature of the situation giving rise to the possible use, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm caused in the absence of the use of the system;~~deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b

~~(b) the consequences of the use of the system for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of those consequences.~~deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall comply with necessary and proportionate safeguards and conditions in relation to the use, in particular as regards the temporal, geographic and personal limitations.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. As regards paragraphs 1, point (d) and 2, each individual use for the purpose of law enforcement of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces shall be subject to a prior authorisation granted by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of the Member State in which the use is to take place, issued upon a reasoned request and in accordance with the detailed rules of national law referred to in paragraph 4. However, in a duly justified situation of urgency, the use of the system may be commenced without an authorisation and the authorisation may be requested only during or after the use. The competent judicial or administrative authority shall only grant the authorisation where it is satisfied, based on objective evidence or clear indications presented to it, that the use of the ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification system at issue is necessary for and proportionate to achieving one of the objectives specified in paragraph 1, point (d), as identified in the request. In deciding on the request, the competent judicial or administrative authority shall take into account the elements referred to in paragraph 2.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

The competent judicial or administrative authority shall only grant the authorisation where it is satisfied, based on objective evidence or clear indications presented to it, that the use of the ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification system at issue is necessary for and proportionate to achieving one of the objectives specified in paragraph 1, point (d), as identified in the request. In deciding on the request, the competent judicial or administrative authority shall take into account the elements referred to in paragraph 2.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. A Member State may decide to provide for the possibility to fully or partially authorise the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement within the limits and under the conditions listed in paragraphs 1, point (d), 2 and 3. That Member State shall lay down in its national law the necessary detailed rules for the request, issuance and exercise of, as well as supervision relating to, the authorisations referred to in paragraph 3. Those rules shall also specify in respect of which of the objectives listed in paragraph 1, point (d), including which of the criminal offences referred to in point (iii) thereof, the competent authorities may be authorised to use those systems for the purpose of law enforcement.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2

2. Users of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system shall inform of the operation of the system the natural persons exposed thereto. ~~This obligation shall not apply to AI systems used for biometric categorisation, which are permitted by law to detect, prevent and investigate criminal offences.~~

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) AI systems intended to be used to make inferences on the basis of biometric data, including emotion recognition systems, or biometrics-based data, including speech patterns, tone of voice, lip-reading and body language analysis, that produces legal effects or affects the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a

(a) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf for making individual risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess the risk of a natural person for offending or reoffending or the risk for potential victims of criminal offences;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point e

(e) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons as referred to in Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups;deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

(b) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities or on their behalf to assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered into the territory of a Member State;

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d

(d) AI systems intended to assist competent public authorities or on their behalf for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d

(d) AI systems intended to ~~assist~~be used by competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

33 Amendments of Abir AL-SAHLANI related to 2021/0106(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024