[ParlTrack]

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)

(17 a) AI systems used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf to predict the probability of a natural person to offend or to reoffend, based on profiling and individual risk-assessment hold a particular risk of discrimination against certain persons or groups of persons, as they violate human dignity as well as the key legal principle of presumption of innocence. Such AI systems should therefore be prohibited.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces ~~for the purpose of law enforcement~~ is considered particularly intrusive in the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that it may affect the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling of constant surveillance and indirectly dissuade the exercise of the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights. In addition, the immediacy of the impact and the limited opportunities for further checks or corrections in relation to the use of such systems operating in ‘real-time’ carry heightened risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons that are concerned by law enforcement activities. The use of those systems in publicly accessible places should therefore be prohibited.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Irena JOVEVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Karen MELCHIOR, Svenja HAHN, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces ~~for the purpose of law enforcement~~ is considered particularly intrusive in the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that it may affect the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling of constant surveillance and indirectly dissuade the exercise of the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights. In addition, the immediacy of the impact and the limited opportunities for further checks or corrections in relation to the use of such systems operating in ‘real-time’ carry heightened risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons that are concerned by law enforcement activities. The use of those systems in publicly accessible places should therefore be prohibited.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement should therefore be prohibited, except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is strictly necessary to achieve a substantial public interest, the importance of which outweighs the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA38 if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined in the law of that Member State. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionate to highly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. _________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Irena JOVEVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Karen MELCHIOR, Svenja HAHN, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement should therefore be prohibited, except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is strictly necessary to achieve a substantial public interest, the importance of which outweighs the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA38 if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined in the law of that Member State. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionate to highly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. _________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Irena JOVEVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Karen MELCHIOR, Svenja HAHN, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to ensure that those systems are used in a responsible and proportionate manner, it is also important to establish that, in each of those three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, certain elements should be taken into account, in particular as regards the nature of the situation giving rise to the request and the consequences of the use for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned and the safeguards and conditions provided for with the use. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to appropriate limits in time and space, having regard in particular to the evidence or indications regarding the threats, the victims or perpetrator. The reference database of persons should be appropriate for each use case in each of the three situations mentioned above.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to ensure that those systems are used in a responsible and proportionate manner, it is also important to establish that, in each of those three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, certain elements should be taken into account, in particular as regards the nature of the situation giving rise to the request and the consequences of the use for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned and the safeguards and conditions provided for with the use. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to appropriate limits in time and space, having regard in particular to the evidence or indications regarding the threats, the victims or perpetrator. The reference database of persons should be appropriate for each use case in each of the three situations mentioned above.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Irena JOVEVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Karen MELCHIOR, Svenja HAHN, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Each use of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to an express and specific authorisation by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of a Member State. Such authorisation should in principle be obtained prior to the use, except in duly justified situations of urgency, that is, situations where the need to use the systems in question is such as to make it effectively and objectively impossible to obtain an authorisation before commencing the use. In such situations of urgency, the use should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary and be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions, as determined in national law and specified in the context of each individual urgent use case by the law enforcement authority itself. In addition, the law enforcement authority should in such situations seek to obtain an authorisation as soon as possible, whilst providing the reasons for not having been able to request it earlier.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Each use of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to an express and specific authorisation by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of a Member State. Such authorisation should in principle be obtained prior to the use, except in duly justified situations of urgency, that is, situations where the need to use the systems in question is such as to make it effectively and objectively impossible to obtain an authorisation before commencing the use. In such situations of urgency, the use should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary and be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions, as determined in national law and specified in the context of each individual urgent use case by the law enforcement authority itself. In addition, the law enforcement authority should in such situations seek to obtain an authorisation as soon as possible, whilst providing the reasons for not having been able to request it earlier.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Irena JOVEVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Karen MELCHIOR, Svenja HAHN, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) Furthermore, it is appropriate to provide, within the exhaustive framework set by this Regulation that such use in the territory of a Member State in accordance with this Regulation should only be possible where and in as far as the Member State in question has decided to expressly provide for the possibility to authorise such use in its detailed rules of national law. Consequently, Member States remain free under this Regulation not to provide for such a possibility at all or to only provide for such a possibility in respect of some of the objectives capable of justifying authorised use identified in this Regulation.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) Furthermore, it is appropriate to provide, within the exhaustive framework set by this Regulation that such use in the territory of a Member State in accordance with this Regulation should only be possible where and in as far as the Member State in question has decided to expressly provide for the possibility to authorise such use in its detailed rules of national law. Consequently, Member States remain free under this Regulation not to provide for such a possibility at all or to only provide for such a possibility in respect of some of the objectives capable of justifying authorised use identified in this Regulation.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context, this Regulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to it.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Irena JOVEVA, Karen MELCHIOR, Svenja HAHN, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context, this Regulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to it.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Andrus ANSIP, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Samira RAFAELA, Monica SEMEDO, Salima YENBOU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)

(24 a) Fundamental rights in the digital sphere have to be guaranteed to the same extent as in the offline world. The right to privacy needs to be ensured, amongst others through end-to-end encryption in private online communication and the protection of private content against any kind of general or targeted surveillance, be it by public or private actors. Therefore, the use of AI systems violating the right to privacy in online communication services should be prohibited.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Irena JOVEVA, Malik AZMANI, Karen MELCHIOR, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58

(58) Given the nature of AI systems and the risks to safety and fundamental rights possibly associated with their use, including as regard the need to ensure proper monitoring of the performance of an AI system in a real-life setting, it is appropriate to set specific responsibilities for users. Users should in particular use high-risk AI systems in accordance with the instructions of use and certain other obligations should be provided for with regard to monitoring of the functioning of the AI systems and with regard to record- keeping, as appropriate. Given the potential impact and the need for democratic oversight and scrutiny, users of high-risk AI systems that are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies should be required to conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment prior to commencing the use of a high-risk AI system should be required to register the use of any high- risk AI systems in a public database.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Dragoş TUDORACHE, Olivier CHASTEL, Vlad GHEORGHE, Nicolae ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ, Ramona STRUGARIU, Dragoş PÎSLARU, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Irena JOVEVA, Karen MELCHIOR, Alin MITUȚA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68

(68) Under certain conditions, rapid availability of innovative technologies may be crucial for health and safety of persons and for society as a whole. It is thus appropriate that under exceptional reasons of public security or protection of life and health of natural persons and the protection of industrial and commercial property, Member States could authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of AI systems which have not undergone a conformity assessment.deleted

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

Svenja HAHN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Nicola BEER, Karen MELCHIOR, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Sandro GOZI, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76

(76) In order to facilitate a smooth, effective and harmonised implementation of this Regulation a European Artificial Intelligence Board should be established as a body of the Union and should have legal personality. The Board should be responsible for a number of advisory tasks, including issuing opinions, recommendations, advice or guidance on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, including on technical specifications or existing standards regarding the requirements established in this Regulation and providing advice to and assisting the Commission and the national competent authorities on specific questions related to artificial intelligence.

2022/06/13
Committee: IMCO LIBE

97 Amendments of Sophia IN 'T VELD related to 2021/0106(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024