21 Amendments of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2020/2012(INL)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of an EU regulatory framework of ethical aspects being applicable where consumers within the Union are users of or subject to an algorithmic system, irrespective of the place of establishment of the entities that develop, sell or employ the system;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of an EU regulatory framework being applicable where consumers within the Union are users of or subject todirected towards or targeted by an algorithmic system, irrespective of the place of establishment of the entities that develop, sell or employ the system;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the framework should apply to algorithmic systems, including the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, automated and assisted decision making processes and robotics;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that the Commission should complete a full review of the existing legislation in order to identify legislative gaps; underlines in that regard the extensive legislation already in force that guarantees for instance that products and services placed on the Union market are safe and do not harm people, respect their privacy and follow stringent environmental rules; calls on the Commission to refrain from adopting a legislative act that would double, overlap or contradict those sector-specific legislations;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Points out that the legislative framework introduced by Decision No 768/2008/EC1a provides for a harmonised list of obligations for producers, importers and distributors, encourages the use of standards and foresees several levels of control depending on the dangerousness of the product; considers that this framework should also apply to AI imbedded products; __________________ 1aDecision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 82).
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Considers that for the future legislation to apply, legal obligations need to be very precise and avoid to refer to general principles in order to ensure that they are implementable by economic operators;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Considers that mandatory rules as regards the regulatory framework of ethical aspects should be limited to practices that would undoubtedly undermine fundamental rights and freedoms;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that any future regulation of ethical aspects should follow a differentiated risk-based approach, based on the potential harm for the individual as well as for society at large, taking into account the specific use context of the algorithmic system; legal obligations should gradually increase with the identified risk level; in the lowest risk categoryies there should be no additional legal obligations; algorithmic systems that may harm an individual, impact an individual’s access to resources, or concern their participation in society shall not be deemed to be in the lowest risk category; thisthe risk-based approach should follow clear and transparent rules;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that any future regulation should follow a differentiated risk-based approach, based on the potential harm for the individual as well as for society at large, taking into account the specific use context of the algorithmic system; legal obligations should gradualonly increase with the identifiedin accordance with the proven risk level; in the lowest risk category there should be no additional legal obligations; algorithmic systems that may harm an individual, impact an individual’s access to resources, or concern their participation in society shall not be deemed to be in the lowest risk category; this risk-based approach should follow clear and transparent rules;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of an ethical and regulatory framework including in particularunlocking large amounts of high quality data to train AI systems; highlights that an ethical regulatory framework should include provisions on the quality of data sets used in algorithmic systems, especiallyfor instance regarding the representativeness of training data used, on the de-biasing of data sets, as well as on the algorithms themselves, and on data and aggregation standards;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of an ethical and regulatory framework framework of ethical aspects including in particular provisions on the quality of data sets used in algorithmic systems, especially regarding the representativeness of training data used, on the de-biasing of data sets, as well as on the algorithms themselves, and on data and aggregation standards;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed in a timely, impartial, easily-readable, standardisedhave the right to be informed in an understandable, and accessible manner about the existence, process, rationale,and reasoning and possible outcome of algorithmic systems, about how to reach a human with decision- making powers, and about how the system’s decisions can be checked, meaningfully contested and corrected; believes that consumers should also be protected by the right to switch off or limit an AI system using personalisation where possible;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consumers should be adequately informed in a timely, impartial, easily-readable, standardised and accessible manner about the existence, process, rationale, reasoning and possible outcome of algorithmic systems, about how to reach a human with decision- making powers, and about how the system’s decisions can be checked, meaningfully contested and corrected;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that where public money contributes to the development or implementation of an algorithmic system, the code, the generated data -as far as it is non- personal- and the trained model should be public by default, to enable transparency and reuse, among other goals, to maximise the achievement of the Single Market, and to avoid market fragmentation;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of ensuring that the interests of marginalised and vulnerable consumers and groups are adequately taken into account and represented in any future regulatory framework of ethical aspects; notes that for the purpose of analysing the impacts of algorithmic systems on consumers, access to data should be extended to appropriate parties notably independent researchers, media and civil society organisations, while fully respecting Union data protection and privacy law; recalls the importance of training and giving basic skills to consumers to deal with algorithmic systems in order to protect them from potential risks and detriment of their rights;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of ensuring that the interests of marginalised and vulnerable consumers and groups are adequately taken into account and represented in any future regulatory framework; notes that for the purpose of analysing the impacts of algorithmic systems on consumers, access to data should be extended to appropriate parties notably independent researchers, media and civil society organisations, while fully respecting Union data protection and privacy law; recalls the importance of training and giving basic skills to consumers toeducating consumers to be more informed when dealing with algorithmic systems in order to protect them from potential risks and detriment ofuphold their rights;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines the importance of achieving a high-level of overall digital literacy and of training highly skilled professionals in this area ands well as ensuring the mutual recognition of such qualifications across the Union;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the Union to establish a Europeanuse of existing bodies on either Union or member state level to conduct market surveillance structure for algorithmic systems issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that it is essential for the software documentation, the algorithms and data sets used to be fully accessible to market surveillance authorities, while respecting Union law and trade secrets; invites the Commission to assess if additional prerogatives should be given to market surveillance authorities in this respect;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for the establishment ofa strong coordination of Member State’s authorities, for instance through instruments such as a European market surveillance board for algorithmic systems, to ensure a level playing field and to avoid fragmentation of the internal market, to decide with a qualified majority and by secret vote in case of different decisions on algorithmic systems used in more than one Member State, as well as at the request of the majority of the national authorities;