2020/2016(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
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 rights in particular the right to privacy and protection of personal data, right to equality and non-discrimination, and the right to good administration and a fair trial;

Amendment 10 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

A c. Whereas in those Member States where some information was available on the use of facial recognition technologies, data protection authorities found that the use of these technologies did not comply with data protection law and lacked legal basis for their deployment;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

A c. whereas in the field of the internal market, through reforming public procurement procedures the Union can make a fundamental difference in aligning government actions and behaviour with secondary policy objectives such as data protection and non-discrimination;

Amendment 12 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)

A d. Whereas discrimination in data - driven algorithmic decision-making can occur during the design, testing, and implementation phase, through the biases that are incorporated in the datasets or the algorithms;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)

A d. whereas a principle-based technical development and application of AI is necessary to ensure compliance with human and fundamental rights;

Amendment 14 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Recital A e (new)

A e. whereas on 4 December 2018 the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe published the Ethical Charter for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems, which sets out ethical principles for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Recital A e (new)

A e. Whereas certain uses of AI technologies are particularly sensitive and prone to abuse, which recently made some technology companies decide to stop offering related software;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
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 authorities is 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 EU;~~

Amendment 17 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL

Draft opinion
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 authorities~~there 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 t~~o 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 EU~~he 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 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that AI used by police and judicial authorities has to be categorised as high-risk and treated with the utmost care and highest standards of data protection, given ~~that~~ the role of these authorities i~~s to~~n defending the public interest; considers that the EU should take the lead in laying down ~~basic rules o~~high standards, rules and principles based on fundamental rights in the development and use of AI to ensure the same high level of consumer protection across the EU;

Amendment 19 #

Clara PONSATÍ OBIOLS

Draft opinion
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 authorities is to defend the public interest, and given the potential threat that these technologies can represent for fundamental rights, especially since the values reflected in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union are at risk in several Member States; 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 EU;

Amendment 2 #

Markus BUCHHEIT, Christine ANDERSON

Draft opinion
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 rights, while stressing that criminal law legislation falls within the competence of each Member State;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
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 authorities is 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 EU while encouraging innovation and minimising regulatory burdens on businesses, especially SMEs;

Amendment 21 #

Maria GRAPINI, Marc ANGEL

Draft opinion
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 authorities is to defend the public interest and in view of the nature of their responsibility; 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 and uniform industry standards across the EU;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
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 authorities is 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 EU, and to enable a better functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 23 #

Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Andrus ANSIP, Claudia GAMON, Ivars IJABS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that AI used by police and judicial authorities has to be generally categorised as high-risk, given that the role of these authorities is 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 by public institutions to ensure the same high level of consumer protection across the EU;

Amendment 24 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Recognizes that the use of AI in the field of justice can help improve efficiency and quality of proceedings; stresses in this context that in particular the rules laid down in the European Convention for Human Rights and in the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data must be respected;

Amendment 25 #

Christine ANDERSON, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Virginie JORON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Recognizes at the same time that policing is mainly a matter that falls under the responsibility of the Member States and that the possible use of AI in policing is ultimately for each individual Member State to decide upon;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to scrutinize the application of existing legislation and its enforcement, as well as self-regulatory measures, prior to initiating any possible new legislative proposals;

Amendment 27 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to assess the AI technology available on the market and the level of use by police and judicial authorities on a country-by-country basis.

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to incorporate key ethical AI principles of data protection, human control and non-discrimination into requirements as part of public procurement procedures for digital applications and AI used by police and judicial authorities;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
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~~must rely on human oversight; emphasizes the importance of avoiding the use of algorithms with judicial functions, predictive assessments on the dangerousness of subjects and predictive policing practices.

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
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 right~~in artificial intelligence and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters;

Amendment 30 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that AI should help to ease the administrative burden on public authorities and increase the efficiency of their decision-making, without ever replacing human decisions, and that AI systems should rely on human oversight;

Amendment 31 #

Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that AI should help to ease the administrative burden on public authorities, without ever replacing human decisions and coordination, and that AI systems should rely on human oversight, collaboration and coordination;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that AI should help to ease the administrative burden on public authorities~~, without ever~~; underlines that AI systems must under no circumstances replac~~ing~~e human decisions, and that AI systems ~~should~~always must rely on human oversight;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
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 oversight;

Amendment 34 #

Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Andrus ANSIP, Claudia GAMON, Ivars IJABS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that AI should help to ease the administrative burden on public authorities, without ever fully replacing human decisions, and that AI systems should rely on human oversight;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
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 oversight~~support police and judicial authorities and that humans should always bear the ultimate responsibility for any decision-making in criminal matters;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission to issue binding rules for companies to document the development of AI systems; notes in this regard that it is essential for the risk assessment documentation, the software documentation, the algorithms and data sets used to be fully accessible to market surveillance authorities, while respecting Union law;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
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 data;deleted

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that such tools should be released as ~~open so~~software under the public procurement procedurce with software ~~under the public procurement procedure~~documentation and algorithms fully accessible to the responsible Member State authorities, allowing also the supervision or appeal authorities to review how the AI system arrived at a certain conclusion, 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 data~~accessible for periodic auditing;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the functioning of the digital single market should be improved by reinforcing legal certainty for providers of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and reinforcing ~~users’ trust~~public trust and security by strengthening safeguards to ensure the rule of law and fundamental rights;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that Articles 18(2), 42 and 43, and Annex X of Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement need to be updated so that police and judicial authorities can require 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 data;

Amendment 41 #

Svenja HAHN, Claudia GAMON, Ivars IJABS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 43 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Stresses that the use of AI must be based on the principle of non- discrimination in order to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups in data entry and analysis; underlines that crucial to this are the quality of algorithms, original data and ex-ante review of decision-making processes;

Amendment 44 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Stresses that algorithmic-based procedures for analysing legal data must be made accessible, understandable and verifiable to ensure transparency and independence in criminal proceedings;

Amendment 45 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Emphasizes the importance of open-source development of AI in order to avoid obstacles such as high license fees, to ensure transparency and traceability as well as verification, to enable innovation, to strengthen cooperation in the application and development of AI and a culture of exchanging ideas and experiences from using algorithms and their creation;

Amendment 46 #

Markus BUCHHEIT, Christine ANDERSON

Draft opinion
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 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that data collection and the monitoring of individuals should be limited to criminal suspects; stresses that data which are no longer relevant to the proceedings must be deleted;

Amendment 48 #

Maria GRAPINI, Marc ANGEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that data collection and the monitoring of individuals should be limited to criminal suspects, taking into account the respect of private life and the presumption of innocence;

Amendment 49 #

Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Andrus ANSIP, Claudia GAMON, Ivars IJABS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that data collection and the monitoring of individuals should be limited to criminal suspects and court approved surveillance;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. Whereas the testing and use of AI by police and judicial authorities is wide- spread, with different type of uses, consequences and risks that these entail namely, facial recognition systems, DNA profiling, predictive crime mapping, and mobile phone data extraction, advanced case-law search engines, online dispute resolution, and machine learning for administration of justice;

Amendment 50 #

Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Underlines that the use of AI by public authorities in criminal matters must be done with utmost precaution, only if there is thorough evidence of the trustworthiness of the algorithm, and in accordance with ethical standards in order to prevent misuses in the public sector, such as mass surveillance and breaches of due process rights;

Amendment 51 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Svenja HAHN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Highlights that national authorities should receive training and basic skills to deal with algorithmic systems and responsibly use AI technologies in criminal matters, with the aim of protecting European citizens from potential risks and damages to their fundamental rights;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Insists that effective complaint and redress procedures, including judicial redress be made available to citizens;~~deleted

Amendment 53 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Insists that Member States shall ensure that citizens are informed when they are subject to the use of artificial intelligence and that effective complaint and redress procedures, including judicial redress should be made available to ~~citizens~~them;

Amendment 54 #

Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Insists that simple effective complaint and redress procedures, including judicial redress be made available to citizens in order to be able to defend their rights;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Insists that effective and easily accessible complaint and redress procedures, including judicial redress be made available to citizens;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 57 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the high risk of abuse of certain types of AI, including facial recognition technologies in public spaces, automated behaviour detection ~~and~~or profiling ~~to divide people into risk categories at borders, and calls on the Commission to ban them;~~, and calls on the Commission to ensure that public authorities conduct proper impact assessments on the use of remote biometric recognition technologies prior to using them; welcomes the Commission's ongoing work to assess the use of biometric technologies and to consider regulatory options, including their ban in specific circumstances, and introduce necessary safeguards where their use is justified

Amendment 58 #

Christine ANDERSON, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Virginie JORON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the high risk of abuse of certain types of AI, including facial recognition technologies in public spaces, automated behaviour detection and profiling to divide people into risk categories at borders, a~~nd calls on the Commission to ban them;~~ utonomous lethal weapons, biometric detection and recognition for mass surveillance, mass- scale citizen scoring, and predictive policing, and calls on the Commission to ban all applications that are in the highest risk category and welcomes the fact that some technology companies already enacted such bans;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
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 60 #

Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Andreas SCHIEDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 62 #

Svenja HAHN, Claudia GAMON, Ivars IJABS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the high risk of abuse of certain types of AI, including facial recognition technologies in public spaces, a~~utomated behaviour detection and profiling to divide people into risk categories at borders, and calls on the Commission to ban them~~nd calls on the Commission in this regard to strictly apply a risk-based approach;

Amendment 64 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 65 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Svenja HAHN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls for exchanges of information and best practices regarding the application of AI techniques and tools by judicial and police authorities in Member States to avoid a fragmented approach in the Single Market, as well as to face in a coordinated manner the risks associated with AI technologies, such as vulnerability to cybersecurity threats, and ensure the protection of citizens in the Union;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Further recalls the high risk of smart policing applications, which depend on data sets collected by humans containing discriminatory and prejudiced data and calls on procurement procedures for such applications to take into account and have safeguards for possible biases;

Amendment 67 #

Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Andrus ANSIP, Sandro GOZI, Claudia GAMON, Ivars IJABS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Emphasises that where decision making is assisted by statistical calculations, such as at probation hearings, the decision makers need to be trained about the general biases statistical calculations carry and made aware about the specific biases of calculation in the particular situation;

Amendment 68 #

Svenja HAHN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Andrus ANSIP, Sandro GOZI, Claudia GAMON, Ivars IJABS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Recalls the right of rectification established in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) and stresses the particular importance of accurate data sets, when these are used to assist administrative decisions; calls on the Commission to examine the benefits of ensuring transparency regarding the individual data included in the particular calculation and an accompanying procedure for rectification.

Amendment 7 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas the use of artificial intelligence can represent a paradigm shift in the administration of criminal justice;

Amendment 8 #

Andreas SCHIEDER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Marc ANGEL, Maria GRAPINI, Sándor RÓNAI

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

A b. Whereas according to the report from the Fundamental Rights Agency there is still only limited information currently available on the possible use or testing of facial recognition technologies in Member States1a; __________________ 1aEuropean Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Facial recognition technology: fundamental rights considerations in the context of law enforcement, (FRA Focus), 27 November 2019 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_ uploads/fra-2019-facial-recognition- technology-focus-paper-1_en.pdf

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas the use of AI can develop a high potential, but at the same time can also entail considerable risks;

source: 653.820

2020/06/25 JURI 76 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas ~~the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which also applies to~~fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, such as the respect for private life, the protection of personal data, the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the freedom of assembly and of association, but also equality before the law, such as non-discrimination, as well as citizen's rights, such as the freedom of movement and of residence, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence and right of defence should not be undermined by the use of AI and related technologies and apply to the enforcement of the law in all circumstances;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. Whereas AI and related technologies, including their self-learning abilities, always involve a certain level of human intervention;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital А a (new)

Aa. whereas artificial intelligence has the potential to become a permanent part of criminal law systems;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas artificial intelligence and related technologies are a priority for the Union, considering the fast-paced advances of the technology sector and the importance of being vigilant about the impact these will and already are having on the unique European intellectual property rights system; whereas a variety of sectors are already implementing the use of artificial intelligence and related technologies, e.g. robotics, transport and the healthcare sectors to name a few;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies will contribute to the reducing of crime rates, the use of statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention, and the operation of criminal justice systems;deleted

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies ~~will~~may contribute to the prevention of certain types of crime and, therefore, to the reducing of crime rates,; whereas their use of, when applied to statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention~~, and the operation of criminal justice systems;~~ may provide useful support to the investigative activities of police authorities, whilst ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards concerning the protection of privacy, as enshrined in the rule of law and legislation on the protection of personal data, pursuant to the GDPR and in particular to Article 22 thereof, according to which everyone has the right not to be subject to a decision which produces legal effects concerning them, or significantly affects them, based solely on automated data processing designed to assess certain aspects of their personality; whereas, moreover, the use of such technologies may help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of criminal justice systems, though such algorithms - so-called automated decision systems - should not be used to replace human minds in final decisions, in order to avoid deterministic approaches and ensure that all decisions are based on the free judgment of those who must judge, and whose decisions must always be justifiable, responsible and free of prejudice;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies ~~will~~may contribute to the reducing of crime rates, ~~the use of~~facilitate certain procedures through its use in statistical data analytics in, crime analysis and prevention, and the operation of criminal justice systems; whereas the Union relies heavily on external data, which is the key factor for efficiency and optimal working conditions of AI-based algorithms, as well as foreign artificial intelligence providers;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~technologies such as~~ artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies ~~will~~can bring significant benefits in the area of criminal law such as contributeing to the reducing of crime rates, the use of statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention, and the more effective and efficient detection and investigation of criminal cases, as well as operation of criminal justice systems;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas in the long term technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies ~~will contribut~~could provide human decision-making, whose primacy must always be maintained, with assistance conducive to the reducing of crime rates, the ~~use~~study of statistical data ~~analytics~~ in crime analysis and prevention, and the operation of criminal justice systems;

Amendment 2 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right ~~which also applies to enforcement of the~~, the safeguarding of which rules out, at all stages of the procedure, the taking of measures, including technical measures, whose direct or indirect consequence is to deprive the rights of the defence of their substance, and whereas the guarantees attaching to this principle, in particular those of an 'independent court', 'equality before the law' and the presumption of innocence, are more stringent in the area of the criminal law;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies ~~will contribute to the reducing of crime rates, the use of statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention, and the operation of criminal justice system~~could be used for prevention of crimes;

Amendment 21 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Luisa REGIMENTI

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies ~~will~~may contribute to the reducing of crime rates, through the use of statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention~~, and the operation of criminal justice systems~~;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies ~~will contribute to the reducing of crime rates, the use of~~may be used to analyse statistical data ~~analytics~~ in crime analysis and prevention, and ~~the~~contribute to the proper operation of criminal justice systems;

Amendment 23 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas facial recognition software has been increasingly contentious and globally leading developer companies have halted all research over questions related to grave concerns over data protection violations and public safety concerns; whereas facial recognition and similar softwares, may have great potential for assisting the police and other authorities in enforcement as well as crime prevention and also lessening the administrative burden for criminal justice, in light of the manifold implications and cross-sector effects such software have, further discussion is needed; whereas the further development of European data and efforts to diminish the Union's dependency on foreign software developers, foreign data and AI-technologies based services will greatly improve insufficiencies when it comes to data protection and privacy;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas these technologies can be used to create statistical anonymized databases that help authorities, academics and legislators to analyse figures and efficiently design policies to prevent criminality and to help offenders to successfully reintegrate into society;

Amendment 25 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas, owing to the intrinsically opaque nature of AI-systems, the new tools used in criminal justice contexts might conflict with some fundamental freedoms;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

B b. whereas the legal framework of artificial intelligence and its application to criminal law should include legislative actions, where needed, starting with mandatory measures to prevent practices that would undoubtedly undermine fundamental rights and freedoms;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas possible risks linked to the application of AI-systems in criminal justice matters need to be prevented and mitigated in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises th~~e importance of considering~~at the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems must be the subject of the most rigorous possible prior assessment, that overly hasty moves to employ them in police and judicial investigations, adversarial debates between parties or the pronouncement of verdicts would pose unjustified risks as regards the protection of individual freedoms and the related principle of individual responsibility, and that in that connection no Member State should accept the introduction and certification of 'predictive justice' procedures, the results of which, in particular as regards discriminatory bias, have proved disastrous wherever such procedures have been tested;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises th~~e importance of considering~~at the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems; must be closely linked to compliance with rigorous ethical principles, such as those laid down in the Council of Europe's 'European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment', to which public and private entities responsible for the initial design and development of AI tools and services should adhere, so that all social stakeholders can have full information on the corporate structures of companies that produce AI programmes;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental ~~right which also applies to~~and legally binding right enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights for law enforcement ~~of the law~~purposes;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the importance of considering the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems; stresses the importance of the human factor, which must always be the final decision-maker and the role of AI- technologies based software and applications should be a solely assisting one within the criminal system, whether in police enforcement or criminal justice; reiterates that biometric recognition softwares should only be deployed in clearly warranted situations and not become the standard;

Amendment 31 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises th~~e importance of considering~~at the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems can be considered only where there is compliance with rigorous ethical principles, such as those laid down in the Council of Europe's 'European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment';

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the strong importance of considering the ethical and operational implications related tof the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems, which entail significant risks such as discrimination and breach of privacy; considers that a clear regulatory framework is necessary to draw the limits and provide the necessary safeguards;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the high importance of duly assessing the risks and considering all the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies in our society, in particular by State authorities, the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters, as well as within criminal justice systems;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the importance of ~~considering~~taking into account the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems as well as liability and evidentiary issues in case of potential faults associated with operation of AI - systems;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses the need to work on the most efficient way of reducing bias in AI systems, in line with ethical and non- discrimination standards; underlines that the outputs should be reviewed to avoid all forms of stereotypes, discrimination and biases and when appropriate, make use of AI to identify and correct human biases when that might exist; calls on the Commission to encourage and facilitate the sharing of de-biasing strategies for data, in particular in the field of law enforcement in criminal matters; in the light of these risks of bias in AI systems, further calls on the Commission to declare a ban on the use of AI and related technologies for the assistance of judicial systems and of judicial decisions;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the need to establish and maintain a balance between the use of AI systems in criminal proceedings and respect for all fundamental rights and procedural guarantees provided for under European and international law

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

Aa. Emphasises the importance of artificial intelligence being used with due respect for the principles of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in the decision-making process;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Calls on the Commission to further clarify the rules on the protection and sharing of the data collected through AI and related technologies by authorised authorities habilitated to collect and/or process such data, including non-personal and anonymised data that directly or indirectly identify persons, in full respect of the GDPR and of the ePrivacy Directive; further underlines that the right to a fair trial should involve the ability for citizens and litigants to access these data, especially when the latter are collected from their personal devices or equipment, in accordance with the GDPR, but also for the purpose of their right of defence as soon as their legal liability is engaged;

Amendment 39 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right ~~which also applies to enforcement of the law~~, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which also applies through the entire criminal proceedings, including in law enforcement;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the ~~importance of being able~~right of the parties to access the data collection process and that relating to prognostic assessments useful for crime prevention police, to the cataloguing and evaluation of criminal evidence and to preventive assessments of whether a suspect might be a danger to society; underlines, in addition, the right of the parties to access AI-produced or AI- assisted outputs for notification procedures and the role of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention; recalls the importance of questions related to governance, ~~transparency and accountability~~accountability and transparency, in keeping with the Parliament resolution on robotics of 2017, which stressed that it should always be possible to supply the rationale behind any decision taken with the aid of AI that can have an impact on one or more persons’ lives; is of the view, therefore, that it is vital also to provide for a rule that regulates the principle of the independence of programmers, since it is they who prepare not only the selection of data and information to be processed and upon which to base the algorithms, but also the assessment criteria that inform and produce a decision;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance ~~of being able to~~for the developers of AI and related technologies to provide for a sufficient level of transparency of algorithms and of algorithmic decisions towards competent authorities and citizens, and to enable access to AI-produced or AI-assisted outputs, particularly for notification procedures ~~and the role of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention; recalls the importance of questions related to governance, transparency and accounta~~in criminal matters; recalls the importance of questions related to governance, transparency and accountability, while ensuring human oversight at all times; insists on the obligation of the judicial authorities to motivate their decisions, including when using elements of proof provided by AI assisted technologies,the latter requiring the a high level of judicial scrutiny and of admissibility;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of being able to access AI-produced or AI-assisted outputs for notification procedures and the role of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention; recalls the importance of questions related to governance, transparency and accountabilityStresses– on one hand - the importance of the role and the potential of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention, in particular regarding the analysis of large amounts of evidence in criminal investigations and the identification of suspected persons or victims of crime; on the other hand emphasises the risk of biased decisions based on the use of AI technologies and the need for thorough discussions to avoid such decisions;

Amendment 44 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of ~~being~~increasing the transparency of AI-systems that are used in criminal justice matters in order to enable judicial oversight and to be able to access AI-produced or AI- assisted outputs ~~for notification procedures and the~~and, ultimately, to define the responsibility and role of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention; ~~recalls the importance of questions related to governance, transparency and accountability;~~

Amendment 48 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the ~~importance of being~~right of the persons concerned to be able to access AI- produced or AI-assisted outputs for notification procedures and the role of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention; recalls the importance of questions related to governance, transparency and accountability;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that the most severe misuses of AI and related technologies, such as mass surveillance, profiling, predictive policing programs which could assess where crime is likely to occur, where suspects are likely to be located, a person’s chances of victimisation, vulnerability, being reported missing or being the victim or the perpetrator of domestic violence or a sexual offence, and breaches of due process rights can come from public authorities acting in law enforcement;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which also applies to enforcement of the law and taking into account that AI-based technologies could also have an impact on different human rights;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Underlines the importance of auto-generated data using in evidence collection and analysis; recalls that, both in crime prevention and criminal justice, the cause for errors in or possible mis-use in data-input and -output analysis, as well as interpretation thereof, may be rooted in the human factor involved and calls therefore for a cautious approach when analysis the effectiveness and appropriateness of using AI-technologies in all decision-making processes;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on all competent public authorities, especially law enforcement authorities like the police and the judiciary, to inform the public and provide sufficient transparency as to their use of AI and related technologies when implementing their powers, especially in criminal law matters, including public access to the source code as well as disclosure of false positive and false negative rates of the technology at hand;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers it vital that the application of AI-systems in the context of criminal proceedings should ensure respect for the fundamental principles of criminal proceedings, including the right to a fair trial, the preservation of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to an effective remedy, as well as ensuring monitoring and independent control of automated decision-making systems;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Underlines the importance of human-in-command principle and verification of AI-produced or AI-assisted outputs; and recalls the importance of questions related to governance, transparency, explainability and accountability to ensure respect for fundamental rights and avoid potential faults in the AI;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Stresses its cautious approach to the use of biometric recognition softwares; highlights the ambiguity resulting from an inherent insufficiency when it comes to data protection, as well as infringements of data privacy; notes with concern the amalgamation of personal data on citizens in the European Union by foreign countries, through private sector developers and providers;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate these; suggests that an ad hoc cross-sectoral advisory group be set up, consisting of representatives of all actors and stakeholders involved, both at EU- and national level, to address specifically the issue of facial-recognition softwares, which are of particular importance in the current context of a global health pandemic; recommends that the Commission undertakes a thorough assessment of the impact of biometric recognition software on relevant EU legislation and present proposals for updating existing legislation where appropriate to the realities of artificial intelligence and related technologies overall;

Amendment 57 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate theseannouncement by IBM, on 8 June 2020, of the halting of the company's programme to develop facial recognition technology, in response to evidence that the technology displays bias linked to age, gender and face colour; calls on all stakeholders to note the scale of the dysfunctions affecting these systems, independent studies having shown that more than 90% of the errors concerned non-white persons and that some groups were 100 times more likely to be the subject of authentication errors than others; calls, therefore, for an immediate moratorium on the use of facial recognition technologies throughout the Union;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate theseRecalls that, in accordance with the current EU data protection rules and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, AI can only be used for remote biometric identification purposes where such use is duly justified, proportionate and subject to adequate safeguards; suggests that, in line with the precautionary principle, the application of such technologies should be avoided where their impact on society and the rights and freedoms of individuals is uncertain; urges the Commission to propose relevant solutions to the existing problems following the results of a thorough impact assessment;

Amendment 59 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Luisa REGIMENTI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology ~~and~~, regulated on the basis of the principles of human dignity, prevention of harm, fairness and explicability of use, as enshrined in the GDPR legislation on the protection of personal data; suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate these recommendations;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which ~~also applies to enforcement of the law~~must be upheld in all circumstances, in particular in the context of the use of AI;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology, in compliance with GDPR legislation on the protection of personal data, and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate these;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate, considerate and risk-based use of biometric recognition technology and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and ~~urge~~suggests the Commission to assess how to ~~effectively~~ incorporate these effectively;

Amendment 63 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to implement, through legislative and non- legislative means and if necessary through infringement proceedings, a ban on any biometric processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes that leads to mass surveillance in public spaces; Calls on the Commission to stop funding biometric research or deployment which could contribute to mass surveillance in public spaces;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Strongly believes that decisions issued by AI or related technologies, especially in the areas of justice and law enforcement, that have a direct and significant impact on the rights and obligations of natural or legal persons, should be subject to strict human verification and due process;

Amendment 65 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Luisa REGIMENTI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Emphasises the need to draw up strict rules to govern the use of facial recognition technologies in connection with criminal matters; suggests that a recommendation be issued banning their use temporarily pending the drafting of those rules;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to clarify ~~whether~~that law enforcement decisions cannot be delegated to AI and stresses the need to develop ~~codes of conduct for the design and use of AI~~specific mandatory rules of conduct for public and private entities responsible for the design and use of AI, to ensure that they adhere to the principles of transparency and clarity relating to the processes for developing mathematical models and predictive algorithms, while complying with the requirement for independent verification of the quality and reliability of the results achieved, in terms of acquiring and assessing evidence - especially circumstantial evidence - beyond all reasonable doubt, in order to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Considers it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can be~~Takes the view that delegateding to AI ~~and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs~~decisions on the application of laws should be banned.

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can be delegated to AI and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs; stresses however, that the involvement of Member States is key and no efforts should be pursued that would undermine their competence in matters of defence and national security.

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which also applies to enforcement of the law and at all times;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to ~~clarify~~analyse whether law enforcement decisions canould possibly be delegated to AI and if yes, under which conditions and in which regards could Member States allow such use of AI; stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcersment and judicial authorities in case law enforcement decisions would be delegated to AI; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.

Amendment 71 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to clarify whether it is expedient for law enforcement decisions ~~can~~to be partly delegatabled to AI ~~and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design~~, with human control still being maintained over the adoption of final judgements; stresses the need to develop specific codes for ethical behaviour in the development and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers ~~it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can be delegated to AI and stresses the need to develop~~that AI and related technologies that can replace public authority decisions should be treated with the utmost precaution; stresses the need to develop strong ethical principles and codes of conduct for the design, deployment and use of AI and related technologies to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.

Amendment 73 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Luisa REGIMENTI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to clarify ~~whether~~that law enforcement decisions cannot be delegated to AI and stresses the need to develop binding codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities and ensure respect for the fundamental rights of EU citizens; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Considers it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can be delegated to AI~~Warns against the temptation to delegate to AI the power to take decisions under the criminal law, and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Considers it of importance that the Commission undertake an overall assessment of the state of play throughout the Union, with regards to technical infrastructure and resources available for the effective introduction of AI-based technologies in their national frameworks, in accordance with the governing laws; highlights further the need to assess the levels of training and awareness, with regards to regional and national specificities; calls on the Commission to not only undertakes such an in-depth assessment and come forward with proposals to support Member States in their efforts but also come forward with proposals to update the existing legislative framework with regards to data protection and other relevant EU-legislation, to reflect the realities of AI- and related technologies;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. In the light of all the risks exposed, as long as fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as human review are not fully guaranteed, calls on the Commission to declare a ban on the use of AI and related technologies for the assistance of judicial systems and of judicial decisions;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the right to fair trial is aone of the fundamental rights which also appl~~ies~~y to enforcement of the law;

Amendment 9 #