Activities of Alessandro PANZA related to 2021/0106(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Artificial Intelligence Act (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union Legislative Acts
Amendments (24)
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) AI-based technologies are having a rapid and explosive impact on the world of work too. While they have the potential to create new opportunities for gender equality, they could equally increase gender stereotypes, sexism and discrimination in the labour market. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the automation of certain tasks will have a greater impact on female workers, as more women are employed to perform routine tasks. At the same time, AI could offer a great opportunity to reduce gender inequality, but only if gender-responsive policy regulations are adopted which promote equal representation of men and women in decision-making. Support from the European institutions and the Member States for an approach aimed at encouraging female uptake of STEM subjects will also prove essential in combating gender stereotypes.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The notion of AI system shouldmust be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the software, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectives, to generate outputs such as content,AI software and distinguish it from more classical software systems and modelling approaches, such as logistic regression and other techniques which are equally transparent, explainable and interpretable. In particular, for the purposes of this regulation, AI systems should be construed as having the ability, on the basis of machine and/or human- based data and inputs, to deduce the way in which to achieve a given set of human- defined objectives through learning, reasoning or modelling and, for a given set of human-defined objectives, to generate specific outputs in the form of content, for generative AI systems (such as texts, videos and images), as well as predictions, recommendations, or decisions, which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be itoth in a physical orand digital dimension. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy andFor the purposes of this AI regulation, AI systems can be designed to follow an approach of limited explicability and to operate with varying levels of a very high degree of autonomy. These systems may be used on a stand-alonen autonomous basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to– date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission to amend that list.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this Regulation should be defined functionally, as an AI system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes or types of biometric data used. Considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used, as well as the different risks involved, a distinction should be made between ‘real- time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. In the case of ‘real- time’ systems, the capturing of the biometric data, the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously, near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. In this regard, there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this Regulation on the ‘real- time’ use of the AI systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘Real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near- ‘live’ material, such as video footage, generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. In the case of ‘post’ systems, in contrast, the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. This involves material, such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices, which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, common normative standards for all high-risk AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non-discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments. However, as regards the risk management system for high-risk AI systems, EU harmonisation legislation should concentrate on the essential requirements and leave their technical implementation to optional, stakeholder-developed, product-specific and state-of-the-art standards. European legislation should, therefore, concentrate on the desired output of risk assessment and management systems, and explicitly leave industry responsible for designing their system and adapting it to their internal operations and structures, in particular through the development of state-of-the- art standardisation systems.
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Artificial intelligence and related services should not exclude any political, social or economic groups
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
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.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36 a (new)
Recital 36 a (new)
(36a) whereas suitable legislation is required since artificial intelligence could bridge the digital divide between different areas and therefore, as a result, also stop the phenomenon of depopulation with its adverse economic and social consequences for mountainous, remote and rural areas;
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36 b (new)
Recital 36 b (new)
(36b) Artificial intelligence could bring jobs and benefits even to small communities in mountainous, remote and rural areas, thus boosting employment in the area and triggering economic spillovers which prevent economic and social depression in communities in geographically disadvantaged zones.
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. Particular reference is made and attention drawn to people deemed vulnerable and their households. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited scale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small-scale providers for their own use. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they may have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non- discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural persons. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high- risk since they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)
Recital 37 a (new)
(37a) whereas cultural activities could derive an economic benefit from the use of artificial intelligence;
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 b (new)
Recital 37 b (new)
(37b) whereas the 4hc project aims to set up a digital skills centre to preserve European cultural heritage;
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 89 a (new)
Recital 89 a (new)
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 89 b (new)
Recital 89 b (new)
(89b) whereas artificial intelligence has the potential to promote more connectedness between remote, mountainous and rural areas and cities and metropolitan areas and, therefore, suitable legislation should be considered;
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in order to materially distort a person’s behaviour or views in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of a specific group of persons due to their age, physical or mental disability, in order to materially distort the behaviour or views of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Amendment 265 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Amendment 268 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
Amendment 269 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b