Activities of Dragoş TUDORACHE related to 2020/2016(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters
Amendments (18)
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas digital technologies in general and artificial intelligence (AI) in particular bring with them extraordinary promise; whereas AI is one of the strategic technologies of the 21st century, with the potential to generatinge substantial benefits in efficiency, accuracy, and convenience, and thus bringing positive change to the European economy; whereas AI should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a tool for serving people, with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being and the common good;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas trustworthy AI systems need to be accountable, designed for all (including consideration of vulnerable, marginalised populations in their design), be non- discriminatory, safe and transparent, and respect human autonomy and fundamental rights;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas AI applications in use by law enforcement include applications such as facial recognition technologies, automated number plate recognition, speaker identification, speech identification, lip-reading technologies, aural surveillance (i.e. gunshot detection algorithms), autonomous research and analysis of identified databases, forecasting (predictive policing and crime hotspot analytics), behaviour detection tools, autonomous tools to identify financial fraud and terrorist financing, social media monitoring (scraping and data harvesting for mining connections), international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, and automated surveillance systems incorporating different detection capabilities (such as heartbeat detection and thermal cameras); whereas the aforementioned applications, alongside other potential or future applications of AI technology in law enforcement, can have vastly varying degrees of reliability and accuracy;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reaffirms that all AI solutions for law enforcement and the judiciary also need to fully respect the principles of non- discrimination, freedom of movement, the presumption of innocence and right of defence, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, equality before the law, and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial and the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers, in this regard, that any AI tool either developed or used by law enforcement or judiciary should, as a minimum, be safe, secure and fit for purpose, respect the principles of fairness, accountability, transparency and explainability, with their deployment subject to a strict necessity and proportionality test; highlights that trust among citizens in the use of AI developed and used in the EU is conditional upon the full fulfillment of these criteria;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers, in this regard, that any AI tool either developed or used by law enforcement or judiciary should, as a minimum, be safe, secure and fit for purpose, respect the principles of fairness, accountability, transparency and explainability, with their deployment subject to a risk assessment and a strict necessity and proportionality test;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses that technology can be repurposed and calls for strict democratic control and oversight for any AI-enabled technology in use by public authorities that can be repurposed for mass surveillance or mass profiling;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the potential for bias and discrimination arising from the use of machine learning and AI applications; notes that biases can be inherent in underlying datasets, especially when historical data is being used, introduced by the developers of the algorithms, or generated when the systems are implemented in real world settings; cautions about similar potential biases in the algorithms of AI systems; stresses that it is imperative that AI use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters does not become a factor of inequality, social fracture, or exclusion;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers it necessary to create a clear and fair regime for assigning legal responsibility and legal liability for the potential adverse consequences produced by these advanced digital technologies; underlines that legal responsibility and liability must always rest with a natural or legal person;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Stresses that no AI system should be enabled to harm the physical integrity of human beings, nor to distribute rights or to impose legal obligations on individuals;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Highlights that adequate accountability, responsibility, and liability require significant specialised training with regards to the ethical provisions, potential dangers, limitations, and proper use of AI technology, especially for police and judiciary personnel; suggests that sufficient resources be allocated to a European Agency (such as CEPOL) to accommodate such training;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Calls for proactive and full transparency on private companies developing and deploying AI systems for law enforcement purposes;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for periodic mandatory auditing and testing of all AI systems used by law enforcement and the judiciary to test and evaluate algorithmic systems once they are in operation, in order to detect, investigate, diagnose and rectify any unwanted and adverse effects and ensure the AI systems are performing as intended;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Opposes the use of AI by law enforcement authorities to make behavioural predictions for individuals or groups on basis of past behaviour or group membership, such as predictive policing technologies, which attempt to identify people who are likely to commit a crime by analysing factors such as past arrests or group membership;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for a moratorium on the deployment of facial recognition systems for law enforcement, until the technical standards can be considered fully fundamental rights compliant, results derived are non-discriminatory, and there is public trust ibiased and non- discriminatory, the legal framework provides strict safeguards against misuse and strict democratic control and oversight, and there is empirical evidence on the necessity and proportionality for the deployment of such technologies;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Expresses its great concern on the use of private facial recognition databases by law enforcement actors and intelligence services, such as Clearview AI, a database of more than three billion pictures that have been collected from social media and other websites, including from EU citizens; calls on Member States to oblige law enforcement actors to disclose whether they are using Clearview AI technology; recalls the opinion of the European Data Protection Board that the use of a service such as Clearview AI by law enforcement authorities in the European Union would "likely not be consistent with the EU data protection regime"; calls on the Commission to ban the use of private facial recognition databases in law enforcement.