EDPS Opinion on AI Act proposal – Cyber Tech

The EDPS takes a tricky stance as regards a number of the options envisaged within the proposal. For example, the authority as soon as once more emphasised that classifying a number of makes use of of AI as “excessive threat” shouldn’t be sufficient in instances the place such makes use of pose unacceptable dangers to basic rights (see para. 7 of the opinion). This features a.o.:

• any use of AI to hold out any sort of “social scoring”;
• any use of AI for automated recognition of human options in publicly accessible areas, resembling of faces, gait, fingerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and different biometric or behavioural indicators;
• using AI to deduce feelings of a pure individual apart from sure well-specified use-cases, particularly for well being or analysis functions;
• any use of AI methods categorising people from biometrics into clusters in keeping with ethnicity, gender, political or sexual orientation, or different grounds for discrimination prohibited below Article 21 of the EU Constitution of Elementary Rights.

In response to the EDPS, such makes use of ought to be prohibited as they’re intrusive and have an effect on human dignity.

The EDPS additionally notes that the AI Act proposal exempts operators of high-risk AI methods already available on the market or in use earlier than the AI Act’s applicability, besides in instances when these methods are topic to vital adjustments of their design or function or in case of “substantial modifications” (para. 12 of the opinion, see additionally Article 83(2) of the AI Act proposal). Nonetheless, the EDPS finds this resolution unclear, resulting in authorized uncertainty and a few high-risk AI methods by no means falling throughout the scope of the AI Act. The EDPS recommends eradicating this exemption and making use of the AI Act to present high-risk AI methods on the date of its applicability.

What’s extra, the EDPS means that the notion of AI “suppliers” ought to be additional clarified, and doubtless (explicitly?) embrace AI operators who retrain pre-trained AI methods. Though coaching is a basic a part of AI growth, the present proposal doesn’t clearly state whether or not actions resembling retraining or steady coaching ought to be thought-about as a part of AI system ‘growth’. Consequently, it’s unsure whether or not operators collaborating in such actions might be assigned the standing of “suppliers” of AI methods (para. 15-19 of the opinion). 

Lastly, the authority shared particular suggestions on find out how to make clear the proposal’s provisions on EDPS roles and duties as a notified physique, market surveillance authority and competent authority for the supervision of the event, provision or use of AI methods by EU establishments, our bodies, places of work and businesses (para. 29 et seq.).

* Updated info on the legislative course of you could find right here.