Activities of Joanna KOPCIŃSKA related to 2021/0106(COD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union Legislative Acts
Amendments (10)
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3 a) AI can serve in climate change mitigation for example through the European Union's Earth observation programme Copernicus that has the potential to be the programme needed to acquire accurate scientific information that secures science-based decision- making and implementation of the Union’s climate, biodiversity and other environmental policies.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 b (new)
Recital 3 b (new)
(3 b) The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union has caused a significant funding gap to the aforementioned Copernicus programme, which endangers the whole future of Copernicus and which needs to be acutely solved by guaranteeing sufficient funds as well as data processing support so that advanced and automatized technology and AI based monitoring and analysing of all central environmental indicators will be guaranteed in the future.
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) AI systems could produce adverse outcomes to health and safety of persons, in particular when such systems operate as components of products. Consistently with the objectives of Union harmonisation legislation to facilitate the free movement of products in the internal market and to ensure that only safe and otherwise compliant products find their way into the market, it is important that the safety risks that may be generated by a product as a whole due to its digital components, including AI systems, are duly prevented and mitigated. For instance, increasingly autonomous robots, whether in the context of manufacturing or personal assistance and care should be able to safely operate and performs their functions in complex environments. Similarly, in the health sector where the stakes for life and health are particularly high, increasingly sophisticated diagnostics systems and systems supporting human decisions should be reliable and accurate. Digital health should not dehumanise care nor diminish the doctor-patient relationship, but should provide doctors with assistance in diagnosing and/or treating patients more effectively, all the while keeping in mind the necessary human oversight and abiding by relevant data protection rules. The extent of the adverse impact caused by the AI system on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter is of particular relevance when classifying an AI system as high-risk. Those rights include the right to human dignity, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, and non- discrimination, consumer protection, workers’ rights, rights of persons with disabilities, right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, right of defence and the presumption of innocence, right to good administration. In addition to those rights, it is important to highlight that children have specific rights as enshrined in Article 24 of the EU Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (further elaborated in the UNCRC General Comment No. 25 as regards the digital environment), both of which require consideration of the children’s vulnerabilities and provision of such protection and care as necessary for their well-being. The fundamental right to a high level of environmental protection enshrined in the Charter and implemented in Union policies should also be considered when assessing the severity of the harm that an AI system can cause, including in relation to the health and safety of persons.
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) AI systems used in education or vocational training, notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk, since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. It requires appropriate training and preparation for health and administrative personnel to prevent a digital divide, specifically bearing in mind our ageing societies and potential challenges to healthcare systems in the post-pandemic world. When improperly designed and used, such systems may violate the right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, as well as related serious ethical concerns regarding machine autonomy and decision-making, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. Such qualification should not extend, however, to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks or allocation of resources.
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) To mitigate the risks from high-risk AI systems placed or otherwise put into service on the Union market for users and affected persons, certain mandatory requirements should apply, taking into account the intended purpose of the use of the system and according to the risk management system to be established by the provider and the digital services should not dehumanise care nor diminish any human relationship, but should provide assistance in a more effective way.
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Requirements should apply to high- risk AI systems as regards the quality of data sets used, technical documentation and record-keeping, transparency and the provision of information to users, human oversight, and robustness, accuracy and cybersecurity. Those requirements are necessary to effectively mitigate the risks for health (threatening patient preference, and privacy), safety and fundamental rights, as applicable in the light of the intended purpose of the system, and no other less trade restrictive measures are reasonably available, thus avoiding unjustified restrictions to trade.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48 a (new)
Recital 48 a (new)
(48 a) The recommendations regarding human oversight from the Opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the Committee on Legal Affairs with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies (2020/2012(INL)) are to complement this Regulation.
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Providers of high-risk AI systems which consider or have reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation shall immediately take the necessary corrective actions to bring that system into conformity, to withdraw it or to recall it, as appropriate. They shall inform the distributors of the high-risk AI system in question and, where applicable, the authorised representative and importers accordingly. The need for a regulatory framework stipulating the ethical principles to be applied to the design, development, implementation and functioning of all this technology - from data access to strict outcome monitoring.
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used by public authorities or on behalf of public authorities to evaluate the eligibility of natural persons for public assistance benefits and services, including healthcare service and health literacy as well as to grant, reduce, revoke, or reclaim such benefits and services;