15 Amendments of Alex AGIUS SALIBA related to 2020/2012(INL)
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 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of an ethical and regulatory framework, including in particular provisions on the quality of data sets used in algorithmic systems in relation to the purpose of its use, especially regarding the representativeness of training data used, on the de-biasing of data sets, as well as on the algorithms themselves, and on data and aggregation standards; stresses that those data sets should be auditable and made available to the competent authorities whenever called upon to ensure their fitness with the previously exposed principles;
Amendment 45 #
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 possibleintended and reasonably foreseeable unintended 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; this information should not, however, endanger trade secrets and other competitive advantages;
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 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 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 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of ensuring that the interests of consumers and groups which are marginalised andor in vulnerable consumers and groupsituations are adequately taken into account and represented in any future regulatory framework; notes that for the purpose of analysing the impacts of algorithmic systems on consumers, access to data should be extended to appropriate parties notably independent researchers, media and civil society organisations, while fully respecting Union data protection and privacy law; recalls the importance of training and giving basic skills to consumers to deal with algorithmic systems in order to protect them from potential risks and detriment of their rights;
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 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;