22 Amendments of Marc ANGEL related to 2020/2012(INL)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of an EU regulatory framework being applicable where consumers within the Union are users of or subject to an algorithmic system, irrespective of the place of establishment of the entities that develop, sell or employ the system; furthermore, believes that the rules set out should apply across the value chain, namely development, deployment and use of the relevant technologies and their components and for all developers, and should guarantee the highest level of consumer protection; proposes that these rules take into account the lessons drawn from the adaptation to Regulation (EU) 2016/6791a (GDPR), considered a global benchmark; considers the designation of a liable entity in the Union (such as authorised representative) important for its enforcement; __________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the framework should apply to algorithmic systems, including the fields of artificial intelligence (AI), internet of things (IoT), machine learning, deep learning, automated decision making processes and robotics; further notes that referral systems should be developed to help explain those systems to consumers whenever they present complexity or constitute decisions that impact their lives significantly;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that any future regulation should follow a differentiated risk-based approach, based on the potential harm or breaches of rights for the individual as well as for society at large, taking into account the specific use context of the algorithmic system; legal obligations and certification requirements should gradually increase with the identified risk level; in the lowest risk category there should be no additional legal obligations; algorithmic systems that may harm an individual and certification or labelling systems should be voluntary; algorithmic systems that may harm an individual or cause potential breaches of an individual’s rights, impact an individual’s access to resources, or concern their participation in society shall not be deemed to be in the lowest risk category; this risk-based approach should follow clear and transparent rules, providing enough legal certainty whilst being future-proof;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that any future regulation should follow a differentiated risk-based approach, based on the potential harm for the individual as well as for society at large, taking into account the specific use context of the algorithmic system; legal obligations should gradually increase with the identified risk level; in the lowest risk category there should be no additional legala labelling obligations; algorithmic systems that may harm an individual, impact an individual’s access to resources, or concern their participation in society shall not be deemed to be in the lowest risk category; this risk- based approach should follow clear and transparent rules;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that the ethical principles should be the basis for a harmonised European system of risk classification and related legal obligations;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed in a timely, impartial, easily-readable, standardised and accessible manner about the existence, process, rationale, reasoning and possibleintended and reasonably foreseeable unintended outcome of algorithmic systems, about how to reach a human with decision- making powers, and about how the system’s decisions can be checked, meaningfully contested and corrected; this information should not, however, endanger trade secrets and other competitive advantages;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed in a timely, impartial, easily-readable, standardised and accessible manner about the existence, process, rationale, reasoning and possible outcome of algorithmic systems, about how to reach a human with decision- making powers, and about how the system’s decisions can be checked, meaningfully contested and corrected; recalls that humans must always be able to overrule automated decisions that are final and permanent;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed in a timely, impartial, easily-readable, standardised and accessible manner about the existence, the aims or purpose, process, rationale, reasoning and possible outcome and consequences for consumers of algorithmic systems, about how to reach a human with decision- making powers, and about how the system’s decisions can be checked, meaningfully contested and corrected;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes that a European legal framework for a system of risk classification and related legal obligations is required to ensure a uniform protection of European consumers;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that where public money contributesmoney originating from public sources contributes significantly to the development or implementation of an algorithmic system, the code, the generated data - as far as it is non-personal - and the trained model should be public by default, to enable transparency and reuse, among other goals, to maximise the achievement of the Single Market, and to avoid market fragmentation;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines that the increased use of artificial intelligence requires a strong focus on digital security, as the large amount of data creates new risks of cyberattacks; calls on the Commission to develop clear guidelines for businesses and public agencies to take the necessary precautions when using artificial intelligence;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls for a uniform implementation of the system of risk classification and related legal obligations to ensure a level-playing field among the Member States and to prevent a fragmentation of the internal market;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Considers that AI, IoT, and other emerging technologies have enormous potential to deliver opportunities for consumers to have access to several amenities in many aspects of their lives alongside with better products and services, as well as to benefit from better market surveillance, as long as all applicable principles, conditions (including transparency and auditability), and regulations continue to apply;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls for the establishment of an Union-wide registration system for artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies to support the uniform and transparent implementation of the risk classification in the Union;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of ensuring that the interests of consumers and groups which are marginalised andor in vulnerable consumers and groupsituations are adequately taken into account and represented in any future regulatory framework; notes that for the purpose of analysing the impacts of algorithmic systems on consumers, access to data should be extended to appropriate parties notably independent researchers, media and civil society organisations, while fully respecting Union data protection and privacy law; recalls the importance of training and giving basic skills to consumers to deal with algorithmic systems in order to protect them from potential risks and detriment of their rights;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that, when it comes to filling the gaps on the practical implementation of ethical guidelines on algorithmic systems and connected technologies, models such as the so-called VCIO model (Values, Criteria, Indicators, Observables) should be studied and evaluated in terms of fitness for purpose; further considers that such models to concretise and implement AI system requirements, as well as to produce labels that allow companies to communicate the ethical properties of their products clearly and uniformly through a standardised risk matrix, could enhance consumer literacy, information, and awareness;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the Union to establishment of a European market surveillance structure for algorithmic systems issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities;n the framework of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, which the Parliament proposed in its resolution of 16 February 20171a, issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities, monitoring the implementation of relevant EU legislation, addressing potential consumer protection issues, identifying standards for best practice, and, where appropriate, making recommendations for regulatory measures; __________________ 1aEuropean Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) (OJ C 252, 18.7.2018, p. 239).
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the Union to consider the establishment of a European market surveillance structure for algorithmic systems issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities; further calls for this structure to be appropriately advised by stakeholder organisations (such as consumer protection organisations) in order to ensure wide consumer representation;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the Union to establish a European market surveillance structure for algorithmic systems issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities; emphasizes that Member States must develop risk-management strategies for AI in the context of their national market surveillance strategies.
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for the establishment of a European market surveillance board for algorithmic systems in the framework of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, to ensure a level playing field and to avoid fragmentation of the internal market, to decide with a qualified majority and by secret vote in case of different decisions on algorithmic systems used in more than one Member State, as well as at the request of the majority of the national authorities;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Believes that a European certification of ethical compliance should be designed in such a way as to inform consumers about the risk level of a product or a service with an algorithmic component as well as its trustworthiness in the light of the ethical principles and all other requirements based on relevant Union legislation;
Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses the need for national market surveillance authorities to be reinforced in terms of capacity, skills, and competences in AI, IoT and other related technologies, as well as knowledge about its specific risks;