Activities of Sergey LAGODINSKY related to 2020/2013(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (25)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Citation 1 (new)
Citation 1 (new)
– having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Citation 2 (new)
Citation 2 (new)
– having regard to Articles 10, 19, 21 and 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Citation 3 (new)
Citation 3 (new)
– having regard to the right to petition enshrined in Articles 20 and 227 of the TFEU and Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EUCFR),
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 (new)
Citation 4 (new)
– having regard to Articles 21 and 22 of the EUCFR,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Citation 5 (new)
Citation 5 (new)
– having regard to the preamble to the TEU,
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Citation 6 (new)
Citation 6 (new)
– having regard to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Protocol No 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Citation 7 (new)
Citation 7 (new)
– having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin1a (Racial Equality Directive), 1a OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Citation 8 (new)
Citation 8 (new)
– having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation1a (Equal Treatment in Employment Directive), 1a OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Citation 9 (new)
Citation 9 (new)
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)1a (GDPR), and to Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA1b, 1a OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1. 1b OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Citation 10 (new)
Citation 10 (new)
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 December 2019 on The European Green Deal,
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Citation 11 (new)
Citation 11 (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics1a, 1a OJ C 252, 18.7.2018, p. 239.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Citation 12 (new)
Citation 12 (new)
– having regard to the OECD Council Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence adopted on 22 May 2019,
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Citation 13 (new)
Citation 13 (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2018 on autonomous weapon systems1a, 1aEuropean Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 on autonomous weapon systems (2018/2752(RSP)) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/TA-8-2018-0341_EN.html
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital A (new)
Recital A (new)
A. whereas the development and design of so-called ‘artificial intelligence’, robotics and related technologies is done by humans, and their choices determine the potential of technology to benefit society;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital B (new)
Recital B (new)
B. whereas ethical guidance, such as the principles adopted by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, provides a good starting point but is not enough to ensure that businesses act fairly and guarantee the effective protection of individuals;
Amendment 16 #
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 2
paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the use, creation and management of artificial intelligence must respect the fEU law, according to the Charter of Fundamental rRights, values and freedoms expressed in the EU Treatiesthe EU Treaties and the goals and values, including in particular combatting discrimination on the basis of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, the right to the protection of your personal data, and inor the idea underpinning the creation of the European Union; welcomes the publication of the Commission's White Paper on Artificial Intelligence andright to get access to justice, of the European Union, as well as the general principles of the European Convention on Human Rights; welcomes the publication of the Commission's White Paper on Artificial Intelligence; notes that AI technologies enable the automation of information processing and action to an unprecedented scale such as mass surveillance in civil and military domains, which poses a threat to fundamental rights and paves the way for unlawful intervention within state sovereignty, as illustrated by the case of Cambridge Analytica; calls for the scrutiny of mass surveillance activities under international law jurisdiction and enforcement standards; Calls for an international ban of highly intrusive social scoring as infringement of human rights; Considering the decisional hegemony and control of certain private actors on the development of such technologies, calls for strengthening the accountability of such private actors under international law; encourages deeper research into the use of Artificial Intelligence by state authorities; stresses that the European Union must contribute to the reassessment of the existing, and the creation of an international legal framework for the use of AI, especially in the context of building the strategic advantage that AI can offerresearch and development, creation, use, maintenance, and advancement of AI, especially in the context of building the advantages that AI can offer, while countering and remedying any potential risks, in particular with regard to the principles of territorial integrity, of non- intervention, and use of force; calls on the Commission to facilitate research into, and the discourse about, opportunities of using AI in disaster relief, crisis prevention, and upholding peace;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 3
paragraph 3
3. Notes thate potential of artificial intelligence has great potential in the fight against crime, online terrorist content and cybercrimeincluding cybercrime; highlights in this regard the importance of a free and open internet as a tool for emancipation of persons, especially in unveiling and countering sexual discrimination and harassment, racism, individual as well as structural, as well as the self-fulfilment of sexual minorities, women and others; considers that, in each of these cases, there must be certainty that its use does not lead to the unjustified deletion or blocking of content and thus to the censorship of or discrimination against views expressed onlinesuppression of fundamental rights;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4
paragraph 4
4. Stresses that all operations undertakenactions by artificial intelligence must always remain under human supervisioncontrol; stresses that the use of artificial intelligence in the justice system should be used to improve the analysis and collection of data and the protection of victims, but that it is no substitute for human beings in terms of sentencing or decision-makingexplored in research and development, accompanied by impact assessments, in particular regarding safeguards for due process, and against bias and discrimination, applying a precautionary principle;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4 a (new)
paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Considers it necessary to create a clear and fair international regime for assigning legal responsibility for adverse consequences produced by these advanced digital technologies; underlines that the first and foremost aim must be to pre- empt such consequences; thus calls for the consequent application of the precautionary principle for all applications of AI in this area;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4 b (new)
paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Underlines that any disadvantageous decision about a natural person that is based solely on automated processing, including profiling, and which produces an adverse legal effect concerning the data subject or significantly affects him or her, is prohibited under Union law, unless authorised by Union or Member State law which at least provides for the right to obtain human intervention; reminds that decisions in the exercise of state authority are almost always decisions that have a legal effect on the person affected, due to the executive nature; calls on the Commission, the European Data Protection Board and other independent supervisory authorities to issue guidelines, recommendations and best practices in order to further specify the criteria and conditions for decisions based on profiling and the use of AI for the exercise of state authority, and to engage internationally to develop an international legal framework;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4 c (new)
paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. calls for a ban on automated, non- contestable legal and/or administrative decision-making; Underlines that in the exercise of state authority, the final decision always needs to be taken by a human, who can be held accountable for the decisions made, and include the possibility of a recourse for a remedy; points out however to the risks in decisions made by humans if solely relying on the data, profiles and recommendations generated by machines;
Amendment 75 #
4 d. Recalls and fully supports its 12 September 2018 resolution on autonomous weapons; stresses the urgent need to prohibit autonomous weapon systems without meaningful human control and oversight both at EU and international level; calls on the EU to act without delay and adopt a common position in this respect and initiate negotiations at international level leading to a ban of lethal autonomous weapon systems;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4 e (new)
paragraph 4 e (new)
4 e. Stresses the role of IT security both as a tool and a target in attacks on civil and military infrastructure, by both private and state actors; highlights the fact that the lines between private and state attackers continue to be blurred and that the attribution of attackers, and the identification of motivations for attack, continue to be very hard and call for caution and restraint as the potential for obfuscation and falsified evidence is very high due to the nature of IT systems; calls for a review of international concepts of state responsibility against the background of new technologies; notes in this regard the importance of international cooperation and the publication and sharing of vulnerabilities and remedies (fixes and updates); notes in addition the dual-use nature of IT systems in this regard, and calls for effective regulation, including for artificial intelligence applications;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 5
paragraph 5
5. Notes thatin the situation caused bylight of the COVID-19 pandemic means that governments are facing considerable pressure from their citizens to protect their health effectivelyhave a responsibility to protect the health and to provide access to care effectively for both citizens and residents; considers that the usee potential of artificial intelligence can greatly help in the fight againstto fight against health risks and the global pandemic.;