8 Amendments of Marina KALJURAND related to 2020/2018(INL)
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notes that transparency in an algorithm used for digital products and services is a significant characteristic; upon request of the competent authorities, digital service providers should be obliged to make their proprietary algorithms available, explain the intended goal and compare this goal with the actual outcome; digital service providers should amend and adapt their algorithms immediately when the intended outcome is deemed unlawful or unethical; open- source algorithm libraries should be encouraged as an instrument that increases transparency and accelerates both the technology adoption and the quality of the architecture;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Underlines that in cases of denial of access to a digital product or service, consumers should always be able to inquire about the logic of the decision and the decision-making process; further notes that consumers should always be explicitly informed whether their engagement is with a human or with a machine; emphasises that humans should always have the final responsibility; calls on the Commission to determine the significant role of human operators in the material execution of a decision made by an artificial intelligence (AI) system;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls on the Commission to provide a clearly defined notice-and- action framework for the content hosting platforms to use in the fight against illegal content; stresses that such a framework has to guarantee fundamental rights of users through access to judicial redress and the right to appeal;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Reminds of the incompetence of current automated tools in grasping the importance of context for specific pieces of content; takes therefore the view that the Digital Services Act should not contain any obligation for the use of automated tools in content moderation; believes that any voluntary automated measures put in place by the content hosting platforms should be subject to human oversight and to full transparency of design and performance;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Takes the position that any content moderation measure in the Digital Services Act should concern illegal content only as it is defined in national jurisdictions and should not include legally vague and undefined terms, such as “harmful content”, as targeting such content would put fundamental rights and freedom of speech at serious risk;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Emphasises the need to regulate content curation through giving more control to users on the way content is ranked to them, including options to a ranking outside their ordinary content consumption habits and to opt out completely of any content curation; strongly believes that the design and performance of such recommendation systems should be subject to transparency;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. Considers that content hosting platforms should be obliged to report any illegal content constituting a serious crime to the relevant law enforcement authorities upon becoming aware of it;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Underlines that the only way for users of digital services to be identified in an equivalent manner compared to offline services is the recognition of a pan- European digital identification; reminds in this regard that Member States and European institutions have to guarantee the security of the European digital identification;