Activities of Andreas SCHWAB related to 2020/2016(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters
Amendments (7)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the functioning of the digital single market should be improved by reinforcing legal certainty for providers of artificial intelligence (AI), and reinforcing users’' trust by strengthening safeguards to ensure the rule of law and fundamental rightin artificial intelligence and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas a common European approach to AI and the regulation for its use in criminal matters by police and law enforcement is necessary in order to avoid fragmentation in the Single Market;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that AI used by police and judicial authorities has to be categorised as high-risk, given that the role of these authoritiesthere is an urgent need for a common European regulatory framework for AI in the internal market going beyond the scrutiny by the Court of Justice of the European Union of national and Union legislation isn to defend the public interest; considers that the EU should take the lead in laying down basic rules on the development and use of AI to ensure the same high level of consumer protection across the EUhe areas of law enforcement and public security; considers furthermore that such a common Union regulatory framework should classify AI used by police and judicial authorities in criminal matters as a high-risk application that requires detailed regulation on a Union level;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that AI should help to ease the administrative burden on public authorities, without ever replacing human decisions, and that AI systems should rely on human oversightsupport police and judicial authorities and that humans should always bear the ultimate responsibility for any decision-making in criminal matters;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that such tools should be released as open source software under the public procurement procedure, and that a fundamental rights audit should be part of a prior conformity assessment; believes that – while ensuring the respect of EU law and values and the applicable data protection rules, and without jeopardising investigations or criminal prosecutions – training data must be open datafor AI used by police and law enforcement in criminal matters, a fundamental rights audit should be part of a prior conformity assessment;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that data collection and the monitoring of individuals should be limited to criminal suspects; and should be subject to the prior authorisation by a judge according to the respective laws of the Member States;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6