5 Amendments of Andrus ANSIP related to 2020/2016(INI)
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that data collection and the monitoring of individuals should be limited to criminal suspects and court approved surveillance;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
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.