+Artikel 5 Forbudte former for AI-praksis
---+Artikel 5 1.
---+Artikel 5 1a.
---+Artikel 5 1b.
---+Artikel 5 2.
---+Artikel 5 3.
---+Artikel 5 4.
---+Artikel 5 5.
---+Artikel 5 6.
---+Artikel 5 7.
---+Artikel 5 8.

Artikel 5 Forbudte former for AI-praksis

-

1. Oversigt

,
Artikel 5 1.

Følgende former for AI-praksis er forbudt:

a) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning eller anvendelse af et AI-system, der anvender subliminale teknikker, der rækker ud over den menneskelige bevidsthed, eller bevidst manipulerende eller vildledende teknikker med henblik på eller med det resultat i væsentlig grad at fordreje en persons eller en gruppe af personers adfærd ved betydeligt at hæmme dennes evne til at træffe informerede beslutninger, hvilket får dem til at træffe en beslutning, som de ellers ikke ville have truffet, på en måde, der forvolder eller med rimelig sandsynlighed vil forvolde den pågældende person, en anden person eller en gruppe af personer betydelig skade

b) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning eller anvendelse af et AI-system, der hos en fysisk person eller en specifik gruppe af personer udnytter sårbarheder på grundlag af alder, handicap eller en særlig social eller økonomisk situation med henblik på eller med det resultat i væsentlig grad at fordreje den pågældende persons eller en til gruppen hørende persons adfærd på en måde, der forvolder eller med rimelig sandsynlighed vil forvolde den pågældende person eller en anden person betydelig skade

▼M1

ba) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning eller anvendelse af et AI-system, der genererer eller manipulerer realistiske billeder, videoer, lyd eller lignende materiale af en identificerbar fysisk persons intime kropsdele eller af en identificerbar fysisk person, der er involveret i utilslørede seksuelle aktiviteter uden denne persons frivillige, specifikke, informerede, utvetydige og udtrykkelige samtykke til denne generering eller manipulation

bb) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning eller anvendelse af et AI-system, der genererer eller manipulerer materiale eller optræden som omhandlet i artikel 2, litra c) og e), i direktiv 2011/93/EU, medmindre der i henhold til national ret gælder en forsvarsgrund om »uretmæssig handling«

▼B

c) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning eller anvendelse af AI-systemer til evaluering eller klassificering af fysiske personer eller grupper af personer over en given periode på grundlag af deres sociale adfærd eller kendte, udledte eller forudsagte personlige egenskaber eller personlighedstræk, således at den sociale bedømmelse fører til et af eller begge følgende udfald:

i) 

skadelig eller ugunstig behandling af visse fysiske personer eller grupper af personer i sociale sammenhænge, som ikke har noget at gøre med de sammenhænge, i hvilke dataene oprindeligt blev genereret eller indsamlet

ii) 

skadelig eller ugunstig behandling af visse fysiske personer eller grupper af personer, som er uberettiget eller uforholdsmæssig i forhold til deres sociale adfærd eller betydningen heraf

d) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning til dette specifikke formål eller anvendelse af et AI-system til at foretage risikovurderinger af fysiske personer for at vurdere eller forudsige risikoen for, at en fysisk person begår en strafbar handling, hvilket alene er baseret på profilering af en fysisk person eller en vurdering af deres personlighedstræk og personlige egenskaber; dette forbud finder ikke anvendelse på AI-systemer, der anvendes til at understøtte den menneskelige vurdering af en persons involvering i en kriminel aktivitet, som allerede er baseret på objektive og verificerbare kendsgerninger, der er direkte knyttet til en kriminel aktivitet

e) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning til dette specifikke formål eller anvendelse af AI-systemer, der opretter eller udvider ansigtsgenkendelsesdatabaser gennem ikkemålrettet indsamling af ansigtsbilleder fra internettet eller kameraovervågning

f) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning til dette specifikke formål eller anvendelse af AI-systemer til at udlede følelser hos en fysisk person på arbejdspladser og uddannelsesinstitutioner, undtagen hvis anvendelsen af AI-systemet er tilsigtet at blive bragt i omsætning af medicinske eller sikkerhedsmæssige årsager

g) 

omsætning, ibrugtagning til dette specifikke formål eller anvendelse af systemer til biometrisk kategorisering, som kategoriserer fysiske personer individuelt på grundlag af deres biometriske data med henblik på at udlede deres race, politiske anskuelser, fagforeningsmedlemskab, religiøse eller filosofiske overbevisning, seksuelle forhold eller seksuelle orientering; dette forbud omfatter ikke mærkning eller filtrering af lovligt indhentede biometriske datasæt såsom billeder på grundlag af biometriske data eller kategorisering af biometriske data på retshåndhævelsesområdet

h) 

anvendelse af systemer til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse, medmindre og i det omfang en sådan anvendelse er strengt nødvendig til et af følgende formål:

i) 

målrettet eftersøgning af specifikke ofre for bortførelse, menneskehandel eller seksuel udnyttelse af mennesker samt eftersøgning af forsvundne personer

ii) 

forebyggelse af en specifik, væsentlig og overhængende trussel mod fysiske personers liv eller fysiske sikkerhed eller en reel og aktuel eller reel og forudsigelig trussel om et terrorangreb

iii) 

lokalisering eller identifikation af en person, der mistænkes for at have begået en strafbar handling, med henblik på en strafferetlig efterforskning af eller retsforfølgning eller fuldbyrdelse af en strafferetlig sanktion for overtrædelser, der er omhandlet i bilag II, og som i den pågældende medlemsstat kan straffes med frihedsstraf eller en anden frihedsberøvende foranstaltning af en maksimal varighed på mindst fire år.

Første afsnit, litra h), berører ikke artikel 9 i forordning (EU) 2016/679 med hensyn til behandling af biometriske data til andre formål end retshåndhævelse.
Artikel 5 1a.

Med henblik på stk. 1, første afsnit, litra ba) og bb), er:

a) 

omsætning eller ibrugtagning af et AI-system, der genererer eller manipulerer det materiale eller den optræden, der er omhandlet i stk. 1, første afsnit, litra ba) eller bb), kun forbudt, hvor:

i) 

genereringen eller manipulationen er det tilsigtede formål med AI-systemet, eller

ii) 

systemets design, træning, arkitektur, kapacitet eller brugervendte funktioner gør denne generering eller manipulation til et rimeligt forudsigeligt og reproducerbart resultat, uden at det kræver en væsentlig teknisk ændring, og systemet ikke har rimelige og tilstrækkelige tekniske sikkerhedsforanstaltninger og andre sikkerhedsforanstaltninger til på pålidelig vis at forhindre denne generering eller manipulation under hensyntagen til fejlanvendelse, der med rimelighed kan forudses, og til at korrigere observeret eller indberettet misbrug

b) 

anvendelsen af et AI-system, der genererer eller manipulerer det materiale eller den optræden, der er omhandlet i stk. 1, første afsnit, litra ba) og bb), er kun forbudt, hvis idriftsætteren anvender systemet med henblik på at generere eller manipulere et sådant materiale eller en sådan optræden.
Artikel 5 1b.
Med henblik på stk. 1, første afsnit, litra ba), udgør et AI-system, der manipulerer materiale på en måde, der ikke øger eksponeringen af afbildede intime kropsdele eller ændrer arten af nogen afbildede utilslørede seksuelle aktiviteter, ikke manipulation.
Artikel 5 2.

Anvendelsen af systemer til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse til et af de i stk. 1, første afsnit, litra h), omhandlede formål må kun idriftsættes til de formål, der er fastsat i nævnte litra, for at bekræfte den specifikt målrettede persons identitet og skal tage hensyn til følgende elementer:

a) 

karakteren af den situation, der giver anledning til den mulige anvendelse, navnlig alvorligheden, sandsynligheden og omfanget af den skade, der ville blive forvoldt, hvis systemet ikke blev anvendt

b) 

konsekvenserne for alle de berørte personers rettigheder og friheder, navnlig alvorligheden, sandsynligheden og omfanget af disse konsekvenser, hvis systemet anvendes.

Ved anvendelse af systemer til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse til et af de i denne artikels stk. 1, første afsnit, litra h), omhandlede formål overholdes desuden nødvendige og forholdsmæssige sikkerhedsforanstaltninger og betingelser vedrørende anvendelsen i overensstemmelse med den nationale ret, der tillader anvendelse heraf, navnlig for så vidt angår tidsmæssige, geografiske og personmæssige begrænsninger. Anvendelsen af systemet til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder tillades kun, hvis den retshåndhævende myndighed har gennemført en konsekvensanalyse vedrørende grundlæggende rettigheder som fastsat i artikel 27 og har registreret systemet i EU-databasen i overensstemmelse med artikel 49. I behørigt begrundede hastende tilfælde kan anvendelsen af sådanne systemer dog påbegyndes uden registrering i EU-databasen, forudsat at registreringen afsluttes uden unødigt ophold.
Artikel 5 3.
Med henblik på stk. 1, første afsnit, litra h), og stk. 2, er hver anvendelse af et system til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse betinget af en forudgående tilladelse, der er udstedt af en judiciel myndighed eller en uafhængig administrativ myndighed, hvis afgørelse er bindende i den medlemsstat, hvor anvendelsen skal finde sted, på grundlag af en begrundet anmodning og i overensstemmelse med de nærmere regler i national ret, jf. stk. 5. I behørigt begrundede hastende tilfælde kan anvendelsen af et sådant system dog påbegyndes uden tilladelse, på betingelse af at der anmodes om en sådan tilladelse uden unødigt ophold og senest inden for 24 timer. Hvis en sådan tilladelse afvises, bringes anvendelsen straks til ophør, og alle data såvel som resultater og output af denne anvendelse kasseres og slettes omgående.

Den kompetente judicielle myndighed eller en uafhængig administrativ myndighed, hvis afgørelse er bindende, udsteder kun tilladelsen, hvis den på grundlag af objektive beviser eller klare indikationer, den får forelagt, finder det godtgjort, at anvendelsen af det pågældende system til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid er nødvendig og forholdsmæssig for at opfylde et af de i stk. 1, første afsnit, litra h), anførte formål som anført i anmodningen og navnlig fortsat begrænses til, hvad der er strengt nødvendigt for så vidt angår tidsperioden samt det geografiske og personmæssige anvendelsesområde. Når den pågældende myndighed træffer afgørelse om anmodningen, tager den hensyn til de i stk. 2 omhandlede elementer. Der må ikke træffes nogen afgørelse, der har negative retsvirkninger for en person, udelukkende baseret på outputtet af systemet til efterfølgende biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid.
Artikel 5 4.
Uden at det berører stk. 3, skal hver anvendelse af et system til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse meddeles den relevante markedsovervågningsmyndighed og den nationale databeskyttelsesmyndighed i overensstemmelse med de nationale regler, jf. stk. 5. Meddelelsen skal som minimum indeholde de oplysninger, der er anført i stk. 6, og må ikke indeholde følsomme operationelle data.
Artikel 5 5.
En medlemsstat kan beslutte at give mulighed for helt eller delvist at tillade anvendelse af systemer til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse inden for de begrænsninger og på de betingelser, der er nævnt i stk. 1, første afsnit, litra h), og stk. 2 og 3. De pågældende medlemsstater fastsætter i deres nationale ret de nødvendige nærmere regler for anmodning om, udstedelse af og benyttelse af samt tilsyn og indberetning i forbindelse med de i stk. 3 omhandlede tilladelser. Disse regler præciserer også, til hvilke af de i stk. 1, første afsnit, litra h), anførte formål, herunder for hvilke af de i litra h), nr. iii), nævnte strafbare handlinger, de kompetente myndigheder kan få tilladelse til at anvende disse systemer med henblik på retshåndhævelse. Medlemsstaterne meddeler Kommissionen disse regler senest 30 dage efter vedtagelsen heraf. Medlemsstaterne kan i overensstemmelse med EU-retten indføre mere restriktiv lovgivning om anvendelsen af systemer til biometrisk fjernidentifikation.
Artikel 5 6.
De nationale markedsovervågningsmyndigheder og de nationale databeskyttelsesmyndigheder i de medlemsstater, der er blevet underrettet om anvendelsen af systemer til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse i henhold til stk. 4, forelægger Kommissionen årlige rapporter om en sådan anvendelse. Med henblik herpå stiller Kommissionen efter anmodning om tilladelser i overensstemmelse med stk. 3 og resultatet heraf en skabelon til rådighed for medlemsstaterne og de nationale markedsovervågnings- og databeskyttelsesmyndigheder, herunder oplysninger om antallet af afgørelser, der er truffet af de kompetente judicielle myndigheder eller en uafhængig administrativ myndighed, hvis afgørelse er bindende.
Artikel 5 7.
Kommissionen offentliggør årlige rapporter om anvendelsen af systemer til biometrisk fjernidentifikation i realtid på offentlige steder med henblik på retshåndhævelse på grundlag af aggregerede data i medlemsstaterne, der bygger på de i stk. 6 omhandlede årlige rapporter. Disse rapporter må ikke indeholde følsomme operationelle data om de tilknyttede retshåndhævelsesaktiviteter.
Artikel 5 8.
Denne artikel berører ikke de forbud, der gælder, hvis en form for AI-praksis overtræder anden EU-ret.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede standarder

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede standarder

Standarder
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Conformity

Description

Mechanisms exist to ensure deployed Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on:
(1) Defined use cases;
(2) Geographic markets; and
(3) Use of Intellectual Property (IP).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Review applicable AI regulations before deploying AI tools

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Legal review of AI deployments for regulatory compliance

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI compliance review process
∙ Regulatory mapping (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI regulatory compliance program
∙ Dedicated compliance review for AI deployments

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance framework
∙ Legal and compliance team integration
∙ Automated regulatory tracking
∙ AI Act conformity assessments

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure deployed AAT conform to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, based on:
(1) Defined use cases;
(2) Geographic markets; and
(3) Use of Intellectual Property (IP).

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Manipulative or Deceptive Techniques

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that utilize manipulative or deceptive techniques (including biased data) to impair an individual's ability to make a reasonably informed decision.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting use of AI tools with deceptive/manipulative capabilities

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting manipulative AI techniques

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal policy prohibiting manipulative AI
∙ Review process before AI tool adoption

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI ethics program
∙ Formal prohibition on manipulative AI
∙ Vendor agreements with ethics requirements

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI ethics framework
∙ Ethics board review
∙ Regulatory compliance for AI manipulation prohibitions

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that utilize manipulative or deceptive techniques (including biased data) to impair an individual's ability to make a reasonably informed decision.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Materially Distorting Behaviors

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that exploit a human subject to materially affect a targeted behavior due to their:
(1) Age;
(2) Disability; or
(3) Specific social or economic situation.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting AI tools that exploit human vulnerabilities

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting exploitative AI behaviors

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal policy prohibiting materially distorting AI
∙ Impact assessment process

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI ethics program with formal prohibition
∙ Vendor compliance requirements

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI ethics framework
∙ Human rights impact assessments
∙ Regulatory compliance mapping

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that exploit a human subject to materially affect a targeted behavior due to their:
(1) Age;
(2) Disability; or
(3) Specific social or economic situation.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Social Scoring

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that:
(1) Evaluate human subjects over a certain period of time based on their social behavior or known, inferred or predicted personal or personality characteristics; and
(2) Assign a "social score" branding or equivalent classification.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting social scoring AI tools

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting social scoring

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal prohibition on social scoring AI
∙ Review process before AI adoption

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI ethics program with formal prohibition
∙ Legal review for AI deployments

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI ethics framework
∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act Art. 5)
∙ Automated detection of prohibited practices

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that:
(1) Evaluate human subjects over a certain period of time based on their social behavior or known, inferred or predicted personal or personality characteristics; and
(2) Assign a "social score" branding or equivalent classification.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Detrimental or Unfavorable Treatment

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that lead to the detrimental or unfavorable treatment of certain data subjects, or groups of data subjects, in social contexts that is:
(1) Are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected; and/or
(2) Is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behavior or its gravity.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting AI tools causing unfair treatment

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting discriminatory AI

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal policy on AI fairness and non-discrimination

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI fairness program
∙ Bias testing before deployment
∙ Vendor requirements

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI fairness framework
∙ Automated bias detection tools
∙ Third-party AI audits

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that lead to the detrimental or unfavorable treatment of certain data subjects, or groups of data subjects, in social contexts that is:
(1) Are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected; and/or
(2) Is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behavior or its gravity.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Detrimental or Unfavorable Treatment

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that lead to the detrimental or unfavorable treatment of certain data subjects, or groups of data subjects, in social contexts that is:
(1) Are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected; and/or
(2) Is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behavior or its gravity.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting AI tools causing unfair treatment

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting discriminatory AI

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal policy on AI fairness and non-discrimination

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI fairness program
∙ Bias testing before deployment
∙ Vendor requirements

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI fairness framework
∙ Automated bias detection tools
∙ Third-party AI audits

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that lead to the detrimental or unfavorable treatment of certain data subjects, or groups of data subjects, in social contexts that is:
(1) Are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected; and/or
(2) Is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behavior or its gravity.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Risk and Criminal Profiling

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that:
(1) Assess the risk of an individual committing a criminal offence; and
(2) Predict risk based solely on the profiling of personality traits and characteristics.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting criminal risk profiling AI tools

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting criminal profiling AI

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal prohibition on AI-based criminal profiling
∙ Legal review

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI ethics program with formal prohibition
∙ Legal and compliance review

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI ethics framework
∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act Art. 5)
∙ Legal review process

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that:
(1) Assess the risk of an individual committing a criminal offence; and
(2) Predicts risk based solely on the profiling of personality traits and characteristics.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Populating Facial Recognition Databases

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that create, or expand, facial recognition databases through scraping facial images from:
(1) The Internet; or
(2) Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting facial recognition database scraping tools

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting facial recognition database scraping

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal prohibition on scraping facial recognition databases

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI ethics program with formal prohibition
∙ Technical controls to prevent scraping

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI ethics framework
∙ Technical controls against facial recognition scraping
∙ Regulatory compliance

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that create, or expand, facial recognition databases through scraping facial images from:
(1) The Internet; or
(2) Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Emotion Inference

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that infer human emotions of an individual based on observed characteristics.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting emotion inference AI tools

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting emotion inference

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal prohibition on AI emotion inference tools

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI ethics program
∙ Prohibition enforced in vendor agreements

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI ethics framework
∙ Regulatory compliance mapping
∙ Technical controls against emotion inference

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that infer human emotions of an individual based on observed characteristics.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Biometric Categorization

Description

Mechanisms exist to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that categorize an individual based on their biometric data to deduce, or infer, the individual's:
(1) Race;
(2) Political opinions;
(3) Trade union membership;
(4) Religious or philosophical beliefs;
(5) Sex life or sexual orientation; and/or
(6) Age.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Policy prohibiting biometric categorization AI tools

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI acceptable use policy prohibiting biometric categorization

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal prohibition on biometric categorization AI

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI ethics program with formal prohibition
∙ Legal review for biometric technologies

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI ethics and privacy framework
∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)
∙ Technical controls

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to prohibit the sale, deployment and/or use of AAT that categorize an individual based on their biometric data to deduce, or infer, the individual's:
(1) Race;
(2) Political opinions;
(3) Trade union membership;
(4) Religious or philosophical beliefs;
(5) Sex life or sexual orientation; and/or
(6) Age.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.