Activities of Emmanuel MAUREL related to 2020/2016(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters
Amendments (6)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which also applies to enforcement of the, the safeguarding of which rules out, at all stages of the procedure, the taking of measures, including technical measures, whose direct or indirect consequence is to deprive the rights of the defence of their substance, and whereas the guarantees attaching to this principle, in particular those of an 'independent court', 'equality before the law' and the presumption of innocence, are more stringent in the area of the criminal law;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas in the long term technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies will contributcould provide human decision-making, whose primacy must always be maintained, with assistance conducive to the reducing of crime rates, the usestudy of statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention, and the operation of criminal justice systems;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the importance of consideringat the ethical and operational implications of the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems must be the subject of the most rigorous possible prior assessment, that overly hasty moves to employ them in police and judicial investigations, adversarial debates between parties or the pronouncement of verdicts would pose unjustified risks as regards the protection of individual freedoms and the related principle of individual responsibility, and that in that connection no Member State should accept the introduction and certification of 'predictive justice' procedures, the results of which, in particular as regards discriminatory bias, have proved disastrous wherever such procedures have been tested;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate theseannouncement by IBM, on 8 June 2020, of the halting of the company's programme to develop facial recognition technology, in response to evidence that the technology displays bias linked to age, gender and face colour; calls on all stakeholders to note the scale of the dysfunctions affecting these systems, independent studies having shown that more than 90% of the errors concerned non-white persons and that some groups were 100 times more likely to be the subject of authentication errors than others; calls, therefore, for an immediate moratorium on the use of facial recognition technologies throughout the Union;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can beTakes the view that delegateding to AI and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairsdecisions on the application of laws should be banned.