8 Amendments of Cornelia ERNST related to 2018/2088(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to collaborate closely with technicalmulti-disciplinary teams of researchers to investigate, prevent, and mitigate potential harmful effects of malicious or negligent uses and to develop tools, policies, and norms appropriate to AI applications; stresses the need to develop knowledge-exchange programs and facilitate joint-strategy development between civil society organisations; notes that best practices should be identified in research areas with more mature methods for addressing dual- use concerns, such as security and privacy, and that they should be applied to the area of AI;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the fact that malicious or negligent use of AI could threaten digital security, physical security, and polithysical securiafety as it could be used to conduct large-scale, finely-targeted and highly-efficient attacks; stresses that the development of AI poses risks for human rights - namely privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression and information - and that in the future it may pose further risks that are still unknown;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that any EUthe EU regulatory framework on AI guarantees personal data protection, including the principles of lawfulness, fairness and transparency, data protection by design and default, purpose limitation and data minimisation in compliance with Union data protection law, as well as personal safety and other fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and information; calls on the Commission to continually assess such a regulatory framework and, if necessary, to propose the appropriate amendments to keep it updated with the technological developments;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that European standards for AI must be based on the principles of digital ethics, human dignity, respect for fundamental rights, data protection and security, thus contributing to building trust among users; emphasises the importance of capitalising on the EU’s potential for creating a strong infrastructure for AI systems rooted in high standards of data and respect for humans; stresses the need to systematically and immediately invest in developing the future expertise needed, and particularly in training researchers on several disciplines - including applied ethics - specialised on AI technology, robotics, and related fields;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to establish the European AI Alliance tasked with developing draft AI ethical guidelines; calls on the Commission to complete the work and publish the guidelines, and to continue working towards an EU-wide approach; invites the Commission to initiate a political process on a global level aiming at the development of EU-wide high standards in the field of AI;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that any AI system must be developed with respect for the principles of transparency, allowing for human understanding of its actions; notes that in order to build trust in and enable the progress of AI, users must be aware of how their data is used and when they are communicating or interacting with an AI system; believes that this will contribute to better understanding and confidence among users when dealing with machines; stresses that the explainaintelligibility of decisions must be an EU standard in accordance with Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the GDPR; stresses that individuals have the right to a final determination being made by a person, according to Article 22 of the GDPR, individuals have the right to obtain human intervention when a decision based on automated processing significantly affects them;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Highlights the fundamental role that the Commission, the European Data Protection Board, national data protection authorities and other independent supervisory authorities should play in the future to promote transparency and due process, legal certainty in general and, more specifically, concrete standards that protect fundamental rights and guarantees associated with the use of data processing and analytics; calls for closer collaboration among regulators of conduct in the digital environment; calls for adequate funding and staffing of such authorities;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Stresses that, because of the data sets and algorithmic systems used when making assessments and predictions at the different stages of data processing, big data may result not only in infringements of the fundamental rights of individuals, but also in differential treatment of and indirect discrimination against groups of people with similar characteristics; Calls on the Commission, the Member States and the data protection authorities to identify and take any possible measures to minimise algorithmic discrimination and bias and to develop a strong and common ethical framework for the transparent processing of personal data and automated decision-making that may guide data usage and the ongoing enforcement of Union law;