16 Amendments of Olivier CHASTEL related to 2020/2016(INI)
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas digital technologies in general and artificial intelligence (AI) in particular bring with them extraordinary promise; whereas AI is one of the strategic technologies of the 21st century, with the potential to generatinge substantial benefits in efficiency, accuracy, and convenience, and thus bringing positive change to the European economy; whereas AI should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a tool for serving people, with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being and the common good;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas trustworthy AI systems need to be accountable, designed for all (including consideration of vulnerable, marginalised populations in their design), be non- discriminatory, safe and transparent, and respect human autonomy and fundamental rights;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas AI applications in use by law enforcement include applications such as facial recognition technologies, automated number plate recognition, speaker identification, speech identification, lip-reading technologies, aural surveillance (i.e. gunshot detection algorithms), autonomous research and analysis of identified databases, forecasting (predictive policing and crime hotspot analytics), behaviour detection tools, autonomous tools to identify financial fraud and terrorist financing, social media monitoring (scraping and data harvesting for mining connections), international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, and automated surveillance systems incorporating different detection capabilities (such as heartbeat detection and thermal cameras); whereas the aforementioned applications, alongside other potential or future applications of AI technology in law enforcement, can have vastly varying degrees of reliability and accuracy;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas use of AI in law enforcement entails a number of potentialhigh risks, such as opaque decision-making, different types of discrimination, and risks to the protection of privacy and personal data, the protection of freedom of expression and information, and the presumption of innocence;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reaffirms that all AI solutions for law enforcement and the judiciary also need to fully respect the principles of non- discrimination, freedom of movement, the presumption of innocence and right of defence, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, equality before the law, and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial and the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers, in this regard, that any AI tool either developed or used by law enforcement or judiciary should, as a minimum, be safe, secure and fit for purpose, respect the principles of fairness, accountability, transparency and explainability, with their deployment subject to a strict necessity and proportionality test; highlights that trust among citizens in the use of AI developed and used in the EU is conditional upon the full fulfillment of these criteria;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the importance of preventing mass surveillance by means of AI technologies, and of banning applications that would result in it; calls on the Commission and Member States not to follow China and the United States as regards the development of mass surveillance technologies, but to demonstrate that applications of AI technologies in the EU can only be deployed if fully in respect of fundamental rights;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the potential for bias and discrimination arising from the use of machine learning and AI applications; notes that biases can be inherent in underlying datasets, especially when historical data is being used, introduced by the developers of the algorithms, or generated when the systems are implemented in real world settings; cautions about similar potential biases in the algorithms of AI systems; stresses that it is imperative that AI use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters does not become a factor of inequality, social fracture, or exclusion;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the fact that many algorithmically driven identification technologies disproportionately misidentify non-white people, (minority) ethnic communities, LGBTI people, migrants, children, the elderly, as well as women;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Stresses that no AI system should be enabled to harm the physical integrity of human beings, nor to distribute rights or to impose legal obligations on individuals;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Highlights that adequate accountability, responsibility, and liability require significant specialised training with regards to the ethical provisions, potential dangers, limitations, and proper use of AI technology, especially for police and judiciary personnel; suggests that sufficient resources be allocated to a European Agency (such as CEPOL) to accommodate such training;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Calls for proactive and full transparency on private companies developing and deploying AI systems for law enforcement purposes;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for a compulsory fundamental rights impact assessment to be conducted prior to the implementation or deployment of any AI systems for law enforcement or judiciary, in order to assess any potential risks to fundamental rights; underlines that the expertise of data protection authorities and fundamental rights agencies is essential in assessing the systems; stresses that these impact assessments should be conducted as openly as possible and with the active engagement of affected individuals and groups, and that these assessments should be made publicly available before the deployment of these systems;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for periodic mandatory auditing of all AI systems used by law enforcement and the judiciary to test and evaluate algorithmic systems once they are in operation, in order to detect, investigate, diagnose and rectify any unwanted and adverse effects; underlines that the results of these audits should be made available in public registers, so that citizens know whether AI systems are being deployed and which measures are taken to remedy the violation of fundamental rights;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Expresses its great concern on the use of private facial recognition databases by law enforcement actors and intelligence services, such as Clearview AI, a database of more than three billion pictures that have been collected from social media and other websites, including from EU citizens; calls on Member States to oblige law enforcement actors to disclose whether they are using Clearview AI technology; recalls the opinion of the European Data Protection Board that the use of a service such as Clearview AI by law enforcement authorities in the European Union would "likely not be consistent with the EU data protection regime"; calls on the Commission to ban the use of private facial recognition databases in law enforcement.
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Urges the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to replace the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive by a Regulation, in order to better protect citizens’ fundamental rights in cross-border law enforcement cooperation;