14 Amendments of Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES related to 2020/2016(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the use of artificial intelligence can represent a paradigm shift in the administration of criminal justice;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas the use of AI can develop a high potential, but at the same time can also entail considerable risks;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. whereas in the field of the internal market, through reforming public procurement procedures the Union can make a fundamental difference in aligning government actions and behaviour with secondary policy objectives such as data protection and non-discrimination;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
A d. whereas a principle-based technical development and application of AI is necessary to ensure compliance with human and fundamental rights;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital A e (new)
Recital A e (new)
A e. whereas on 4 December 2018 the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe published the Ethical Charter for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems, which sets out ethical principles for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that AI used by police and judicial authorities has to be categorised as high-risk and treated with the utmost care and highest standards of data protection, given that the role of these authorities is ton defending the public interest; considers that the EU should take the lead in laying down basic rules ohigh standards, rules and principles based on fundamental rights in the development and use of AI to ensure the same high level of consumer protection across the EU;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recognizes that the use of AI in the field of justice can help improve efficiency and quality of proceedings; stresses in this context that in particular the rules laid down in the European Convention for Human Rights and in the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data must be respected;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to incorporate key ethical AI principles of data protection, human control and non-discrimination into requirements as part of public procurement procedures for digital applications and AI used by police and judicial authorities;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that AI should help to ease the administrative burden on public authorities, without ever; underlines that AI systems must under no circumstances replacinge human decisions, and that AI systems shouldalways must rely on human oversight;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Stresses that the use of AI must be based on the principle of non- discrimination in order to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups in data entry and analysis; underlines that crucial to this are the quality of algorithms, original data and ex-ante review of decision-making processes;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Stresses that algorithmic-based procedures for analysing legal data must be made accessible, understandable and verifiable to ensure transparency and independence in criminal proceedings;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Emphasizes the importance of open-source development of AI in order to avoid obstacles such as high license fees, to ensure transparency and traceability as well as verification, to enable innovation, to strengthen cooperation in the application and development of AI and a culture of exchanging ideas and experiences from using algorithms and their creation;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Insists that effective and easily accessible complaint and redress procedures, including judicial redress be made available to citizens;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Further recalls the high risk of smart policing applications, which depend on data sets collected by humans containing discriminatory and prejudiced data and calls on procurement procedures for such applications to take into account and have safeguards for possible biases;