Activities of Patrick BREYER related to 2020/2216(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on shaping the digital future of Europe: removing barriers to the functioning of the digital single market and improving the use of AI for European consumers
Amendments (21)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Subheading -1 (new)
Subheading -1 (new)
A. whereas ‘non-personal data’ means data other than personal data as defined in point (1) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Subheading -1 a (new)
Subheading -1 a (new)
B. whereas data sets can be composed of both personal and non-personal data, where personal and non-personal data in a data set are inextricably linked, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 applies;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises the importance of a functioning digital single market and the profound impact that the use of AI, robotics and related technologies for EU citizenscan have on our markets and society, since they can help tackle the challenges societies face, in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic; highlights the need to ensure full respect of fundamental rights, transparency, access to code and the thorough consideration the protection consumer rights;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Maintains that SMEs need to be supported in their digital transformation due to their limited resources; invites, therefore, the Commission to pursue a fitness check for SMEs before publishing legislation and to keep administrative burdens to a minimum by, inter alia, developing standards; highlights the necessity to remove unnecessary legal barriers to access to data;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers that the efforts undertaken by the EU legislator to improve consumer cross-border access to digital content must be pursued, notably through extending the scope of the Geo- blocking Regulation, which could in turn trigger growth in pan-EU licensing and thus reduce unjustified geo-blocking to content online;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the digital single market and AI are diverse and subject to quick and dynamic developments; urges the Commission to base proposals and initiatives on the right balance avoiding on the one hand an one-size-fits-all approach and on the other hand a fragmentation of the market through national approaches on the otherand through unnecessary layers of sectorial barriers to access to non- personal data;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that it is important that this framework is based on solid principles such as fairness, transparency, security, which should govern the development and use of AI technology. Recognises that while legal obligations should be gradual depending on the risk, the scope of the regulatory framework should not be exclusively limited to ‘high- risk’ applications; calls for unethical applications such as aiming at mass surveillance to be banned;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the firm view that definitions of ‘AI’ and ‘high-risk’ should be future- proof to ensure legal clarity for consumers and businesses and should consider human oversight for high-riskall AI applications;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is convinced that existing legislation needs to be adapted to newin view of long-term technology developments, among which those enabled by AI technologies; asks the Commission to adjust inter alia the Product Liability Directive1 , in particular by redefining the terms ‘product’ and ‘defect’ and considering adjustments to the concept of ‘burden of proof’, which should mirror the modifications to the General Product Safety Directive2 while bearing in mind the vulnerability of AI users and consumers, as well as the need to ensure fair compensation to victims when damage occurs; _________________ 1 OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p.29. 2 OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Outlines that society, including consumers, should benefit from the responsible development and deployment of AI which serves the good of society; asks the Commission, therefore, to defineconsider ethical rulguidelines for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies taking into account the principles of better regulation;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that, for the training of AI, the free flow of data within the digital single market in line with applicable legislation such as the GDPR is essential and this should be underpinned by the appropriate contractual rules;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that the most efficient way of reducing bias in data based systems is by ensuring that the maximum of non-personal data is available to train them, for which it is necessary to limit any unnecessary barrier, notably to text-and- data mining, and to facilitate cross-border uses; notes in addition that public domain or freely licensed open data are often used by AI and machine learning developers when selecting training data, which creates a particular form of selection bias in training data, which can often lead to other forms of more harmful bias in results, such a situation calling for increased flexibility for the use of IPR protected data in order to make AI and machine learning less biased, and more in line with ethical standards, with the ultimate goal of better serving humanity;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that consumers are already benefiting from strong data protection rules such as the GDPR3 and ePrivacy Directive4 ; calls for the swift adoption of a strong ePrivacy Regulation and the efficient enforcement of GDPR; appreciates that the Commission foresees measures to empower individuals to exercise their rights, which must at least partly be based on civil law; _________________ 3 OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1. 4 OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p.37.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Maintains that any new legislation shall abide with the principles already provisioned in GDPR, namely privacy by design and by default, data minimisation and purpose limitation;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Asks the Commission to propose measures to ensure that users have control over their choices, by always safeguarding their consent through an opt-in framework and the possibility to opt-out, avoiding any lock-in effects;
Amendment 61 #
10c. Asks the Commission to propose measures to ensure that, in the same spirit, consumers can still use a connected device for all its functions, even if consumers withdraw or do not give their consent to share non-operational data with the device manufacturer or third parties; reiterates the need for transparency in contract terms and conditions regarding the possibility and scope of data sharing with third parties;
Amendment 65 #
11. Asks the Commission to ensure that users are properly informed and that their rights are effectively guaranteed when they interact with automated decision-making systems and that automatic decision- making systems do not generate unfairly biased or discriminatory outputs for consumers in the single market;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Urges the Commission to ensure a strong protection for users’ civil law rights in the forth-coming proposal for a Digital Services Act (DSA), particularly in order to protect, inter alia, the freedom of expression, the right to access information and the freedom to provide services, and to protect users from harmful non-consensual micro- targeting;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Outlines that it is unacceptable that consumers are exposed to unsafe products and therefore increasedclear responsibilities for online marketplaces are needed; asks the Commission to set up clear rules for the responsibility of content hosting platforms for goods sold or advertised on them in the DSA proposal in order to inter alia close the legal gap in which the buyers failed to obtain the satisfaction to which he or she is entitled according to the law or the contract for the supply of goods for example because of the inability to identify the primary seller;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that large platforms with significant network effects could act as de facto ‘online gatekeepers’ of the digital economy and urges the Commission to analyse the impact that the power of these large platforms have on the rights of consumers and SMEs. and to tackle this through clear obligations for interoperability and transparency that would allow the user to make an informed choice;