Activities of Marcel KOLAJA related to 2021/0106(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Artificial Intelligence Act (debate)
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 (13)
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)
Recital 24 a (new)
(24 a) The use of AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person should be prohibited, except for the cases of use related to health and research purposes. Misuses of such AI systems might lead to serious infringements of person’s privacy and to their manipulation. Such technologies rely on a presumed link between emotions, facial expressions and other external physiological reactions, which does not take into account cultural differences and wrongly assumes existing universal patterns of expressing emotions.
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 b (new)
Recital 24 b (new)
(24 b) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems that are used on minors to monitor or detect prohibited behaviour during tests at educational and training institutions should be forbidden. The use of such intrusive monitoring and flagging technologies, such as e-proctoring software, in a relationship of power, for example where education institutions have a relationship of power over their pupils, poses an unacceptable risk to the fundamental rights of minors. Notably these practices affect their private life, data protection rights and a right for human dignity.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) harmonised transparency rules for AI systems intended to interact with natural persons, emotion recognition systems and biometric categorisation systems, and AI systems used to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content;
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of emotion recognition systems unless such use is strictly for the purposes of the Regulation 2016/679 Article 9 (2) h), i) and j)
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(c b) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems targeting minors intended to be used for monitoring or detecting prohibited behaviour of minors during tests at educational and training institutions
Amendment 449 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is consideredis particularly intrucorrosive into the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that it ma and can ultimately affect the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling of constant surveillanceleave society with a justifiable feeling of constant surveillance, give parties deploying biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces a position of uncontrollable power and indirectly dissuade individuals from the exercise of their freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights. In addition, the immediacy of the impact and the limited opportunities for further checks or corrections in relation to the use of such systems operating in ‘real-time’ carry heightened risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons that are concerned by law enforcement activities at the core to the Rule of Law. Biometric identification not carried out in real time carries different but equally problematic risks. Due to the increase in pervasiveness, functionality and memory capacities of relevant devices, this would amount to a "surveillance time machine", which could be used to track movements and social interactions stretching back an indeterminate period into the past.
Amendment 470 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The use of thoseAI 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).remote biometric identification of individuals should therefore be prohibited
Amendment 476 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 492 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 502 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric and biometrics- based data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context and Article 9 of Regulation 2016/679, thius Rregulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to itng such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner.
Amendment 513 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Any processing of biometric data, biometrics-based data and other personal data involved in the use of AI systems for biometric identification, other than in connection to the use of ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement as regulated by this Regulation, including where those systems are used by competent authorities in publicly accessible spaces for other purposes than law enforcementas regulated by this Regulation, should continue to comply with all requirements resulting from Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, as applicable.
Amendment 551 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Technical inaccuracies of, as well as conscious or subconscious design decisions, and the use of training data which codify and reinforce structural inequalities, mean that AI systems intended for the remote biometric identification of natural persons can lead to biased results and entail discriminatory effects. This is particularly relevant when it comes to age, ethnicity, sex or disabilities. ThereforeAs a result, ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems should be classified as high-risk. In view of the risks that they pose, both types of remote biometric identification systems should be subject to specific requirements on logging capabilities and human oversightundermine the essence of fundamental rights and therefore must be prohibited.