Activities of Kateřina KONEČNÁ related to 2020/2216(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital future of Europe: digital single market and use of AI for European consumers (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on shaping the digital future of Europe: removing barriers to the functioning of the digital single market and improving the use of AI for European consumers
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on shaping the digital future of Europe: removing barriers to the functioning of the digital single market and improving the use of AI for European consumers
Amendments (40)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas wethere is a need to build public trust in AI while fostering innovation in Europe;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas EU Member States and EU institutions have an obligation under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure that each person’s rights to privacy, data protection, free expression and assembly, non-discrimination, dignity and other fundamental rights are not unduly restricted by the use of new and emerging technologies;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Part 1: removing barriers toStrengthening the functioning of the digital single market
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes the EU needs to become a world leader in digitaltrustworthy, human- centric innovation; considers that the digital single market is about removing national barriers and having a better organised and common European approach for market integration and harmonisation; believes that further actions are needed at both Member State and EU level to achieve this;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that the principles underlying the EU’s approach to digitalisation should be based onneeds be fully compliant with fundamental rights, consumer protection and data protection;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that digitalisation and technologies such as AI will be important for achieving the objectives of the Green Deal and for economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis; considers that the COVID-19 crisis also offers an opportunity to speed up digitalisation,se benefits can only be realised if the severe environmental, privacy and fundamental rights concerns, for example of worker surveillance, can be prevented and that the digital transformation must serve the public interest overall;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that the Commission should adopt a balancedn approach to legislation in order tothat creates a digital single market that is competitive, accessible, technologically neutral, innovation-friendly, human-centric and trustworthy, and that builds a secure data society and economy;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to follow the ‘one in, one out’ principle in its future legislative proposals, and to address the fragmentation of the digital single market, remove any existing unjustified barriers, and support innovation by reducing red tapesupport public trust in AI by providing clear, regulatory limits to uses of AI which inherently undermine fundamental rights and the protection of the environment;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that substantial investment in AI and other key new technologies is required; calls for NextGenerationEU, as well as public and private funding, to increase investment in rights-compliant technologies with a concerted review mechanism to ensure transparency and a full, publicly available prior fundamental rights impact assessment of all EU-funded technology investments so as to reflect the EU’s ambition of becoming a global technological leader and reaping the full benefits of digitalisation for all in society;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to work to position the EU as leader in the fundamental rights compliant adoption and standardisation process for new technologies; highlights the need to work with industry and also with international partners on setting global standards;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that we need a data economy that works for the entire EU, as it is a key enabler of digitalisation; believes that it is important for the EU to guarantee a high degree of control over data and maintain the highest standards of protection for personal data, with clear and balanced rules on intellectual property rights (IPR), but considers it essential to maintain openness towards third countries, and that the free flow of non-personal data across borders is important;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Digital Services Act proposed by the Commission; believes that this should contribute to supporting innovation, and removing unjustified and disproportionate barriers and restriguaranteeing a high level of consumer protections to and the improvision of digital services while improving consumer protectionement of users’ rights, trust and safety online;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Reiterates European principles on the ownership of individuals of their own personal data and explicit, informed consent which is necessary before using personal data as enshrined in the GDPR; points out that consent implies that individuals understand for which purpose their data will be used and that entities using personal data in algorithms have a responsibility for ensuring this understanding;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Notes that the EU must pay attention in the way in which data are stored and processed. Integrity of data must also be protected and the reading of data must not lead to oppression or discrimination;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Strongly believes that AI can be a force for good for all European citizens, and offer significant benefits and value for the economy, safety, security, education, healthcare, transport and the environment; believes the securiafety, inclusiveness, accessibility and fairness, especially for groups in vulnerable situations, of AI- driven products and services need to be ensured insofar as it ensures that people will not be harmed by its development and use, and that its benefits are enjoyed equitably across society;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Believes that it is vital that the upcoming EU regulatory proposal establishes in law clear limitations as to what can be considered lawful uses of AI and must legally restrict uses and deployments of AI which unduly infringe upon access to social rights and benefits; believes Europe’s industries -from AI developers to car manufacturing companies - will benefit greatly from the regulatory certainty that comes from clear legal limits and an even playing field for fair competition;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Highlights that the main purpose of AI must be to provide more ecological and effective alternative to current technology. AI and humans should collaborate in fulfilling the long-term goals of humankind - to create equal society based on indisputability of human rights and especially right to human dignity, while achieving balances relationship with nature. Making the most advanced AI is not a goal for itself;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recognises that in order to benefit from AI, the Commission, the Member States, the private sector, civil society and the scientific community all need to collaborate effectively, and to create an ecosystem for successafe human-centric AI that will benefit the whole society;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that while AI offers great potential, it can also present certain risks due to issues such as bias and opacity, the manipulation of individual behaviour, violation of privacy, the identification/ forecasting of sensitive identity traits and emotion, enabling of mass surveillance, the restriction of access to vital public services, and reinforcing structural discrimination;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Highlights that beneficial innovation can only be achieved when we guarantee that uses are safe, legal, and do not discriminate; believes in need to ensure democratic oversight and clear regulation before technologies are deployed;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Urges the EU to take steps to prevent or mitigate associated risks by the negative effects of AI and to set concrete and applicable baseline standards and rules, specifically in the sensitive area of AI systems in law enforcement, such as facial recognition software;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17d. Notes that the EU should publicly and financially support only the AI directly linked with fulfilling of SDG´s and Paris Climate Agreement;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that a lack of consumer trust and confidence can hold back the widespread adoption of AI; therefore clear legislation with limitations must be introduced, since only ethical guidelines will hardly give consumers trust and confidence in AI;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Demands therefore, that AI products and services are safe and that risks of discrimination, loss of privacy, loss of autonomy, and lack of transparency have to be avoided; calls thus, that consumers should have as a minimum the right to accountability, control, non-discrimination and the right to access to justice and fairness; calls further for mandatory information provisions to indicate whether consumers are interacting with AI decision making and demands rules for an effective auditing system that is able to check relevant AI processes to guarantee that anti-discrimination laws and rules on unfair commercial practices and data protection are upheld;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Notes that consumers need a clear and predictable legal framework in case of product malfunction. Such a legislation must acknowledge the definition of malfunction as constantly changing, due to the use of AI in products. If consumers purchase products with embedded AI applications, in case of a malfunction, it may be hard to prove a causal relation between a problem in the AI application and the malfunction of the same products. The burden of proof should lay with the manufacture, as they have created the product and have an enormous knowledge advantage;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission’s white paper on AI, and calls on the Commission to develop a common EU regulatory framework for AI that is risk-based, proportionate and clear (whilst recognising that all AI technologies, dependent on use, pose a degree of risk), proportionate, clear, and allowing for contestability for risk determination;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes that, to varying degrees, AI is already subject to current European legislation, and calls on the Commission to issue clear guidance on the functioning and synergy between any current applicable legislation and any proposed new measures; considers it important not to over-regulate AIto appropriately regulate AI to ensure the protection of fundamental rights as well as to enable safe innovation;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that AI is a fast moving technology that requires effective legislation not only guidelines; believes that achieve this AI needs to be functionally and broadly defined in a manner that covers all automated decision- making, complex algorithmic-based systems and machine or deep learning processes so any regulatory measures can remain flexible and adaptable in order to take into account future developments;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed, if requested in offline format, 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;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Believes that explicability is crucial for building and maintaining users’ trust in AI systems. This means that processes need to be transparent, the capabilities and purpose of AI systems openly communicated, and decisions explainable to those directly and indirectly affected;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Believes that such a framework should be based on an ethical fundamental rights compliant, human- centric and principle- based approach throughout the design, development and life cycle of AI products based on the preservation of fundamental rights and the principles of transparency, explainability (when relevant), and accountability and the rights, obligations of the GDPR – including data minimisation, purpose limitation and data protection by design and by default;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Believes that the scope of new regulatory requirements should be scaled so that AI deemed to pose the highest risk is subject to the most regulatory requirements or should be outright banned in the case of lethal autonomous weapon systems; calls on the Commission to develop an objective methodology for calculating the risk of harm, in addition to what already by exists in current consumer legislation; believes that such a methodology should avoid a restrictive, binary approach that could quickly become obsolete, and instead focus on the context, application and specific use of AI;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that EU-wide AI standardisation willshould foster innovation and interoperability, as well as guarantee athe highest level of consumer protection; acknowledges that, while a significant number of standards already exist, further promotion and development of common standards for AI is necessary;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that a voluntary labelling scheme for trustworthy AI, based on clear and common guidance drawn up by the Commission, could help improve consumer trust, while acknowledging that any voluntary measures cannot prevent against deliberate misuse or serious threats to fundamental rights;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Believes that the use of high-risk AI should be limited to specific and clearly warranted purposes, in full respect of the applicable law and subject to transparency obligations; underlines that this will be decisive for ensuring public trust and support for the necessity and proportionality of the deployment of such technologies; calls on the Commission jointly with civil society organization, trade unions and consumer organizations to carefully consider whether there are certain use cases, situations or practices for which specific technical standards, including underlying algorithms, should be adopted; deems necessary, should such technical standards be adopted, that these are regularly reviewed and re-evaluated, given the fast pace of technological development; where the applications of AI are deemed to be incompatible with the protection of human rights, such as the use of remote biometric identification systems that enable mass surveillance, the Commission must consider outright bans and other highly restrictive measures;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Highlights the importance of education and research for AI; calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish an EU centre of excellence for AI; considers that this should be done with the involvement of universities, civil society organisations, consumer organizations, trade unions, companies and research institutions; believes that such a centre can help to provide specialised training and development for regulatory authorities and can contribute to combat climate change, growing social injustice and the growing monopolisation by few Big Tech Companies; supports the creation of public awareness activities around the societal, legal, and ethical impact of AI;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Believes that particular attention in AI literacy programs should be paid to situations where AI systems can cause or exacerbate adverse impacts due to asymmetries of power or information, such as between employers and employees, businesses and consumers or governments and citizens;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32b. Notes that those who own or operate inputs to AI systems and profit from it should be asked to help fund the development of AI literacy programs for consumers as this is in the best interest of both the company and society as a whole;