+Artikel 50 Gennemsigtighedsforpligtelser for udbydere og idriftsættere af visse AI-systemer
---+Artikel 50 1.
---+Artikel 50 2.
---+Artikel 50 3.
---+Artikel 50 4.
---+Artikel 50 5.
---+Artikel 50 6.
---+Artikel 50 7.
|
Artikel 50 Gennemsigtighedsforpligtelser for udbydere og idriftsættere af visse AI-systemer
-
1. Oversigt
| Titel |
Regulering |
|
Artikel 50 1.
|
Udbydere skal sikre, at AI-systemer, der er tilsigtet at interagere direkte med fysiske personer, udformes og udvikles på en sådan måde, at de pågældende fysiske personer oplyses om, at de interagerer med et AI-system, medmindre dette er indlysende ud fra en rimeligt velinformeret, opmærksom og forsigtig fysisk persons synspunkt ud fra omstændighederne og anvendelsessammenhængen. Denne forpligtelse finder ikke anvendelse på AI-systemer, der ved lov er godkendt til at afsløre, forebygge, efterforske eller retsforfølge strafbare handlinger, med forbehold af passende sikkerhedsforanstaltninger for tredjemands rettigheder og friheder, medmindre disse systemer er tilgængelige for offentligheden med henblik på at anmelde en strafbar handling.
|
|
Artikel 50 2.
|
Udbydere af AI-systemer, herunder AI-systemer til almen brug, der genererer syntetisk lyd-, billed-, video- eller tekstindhold, sikrer, at AI-systemets output er mærket i et maskinlæsbart format og kan spores som kunstigt genereret eller manipuleret. Udbyderne sikrer, at deres tekniske løsninger er effektive, interoperable, robuste og pålidelige, i det omfang dette er teknisk muligt, under hensyntagen til de særlige forhold og begrænsninger for forskellige typer indhold, gennemførelsesomkostningerne og det generelt anerkendte aktuelle tekniske niveau, som kan være afspejlet i relevante tekniske standarder. Denne forpligtelse finder ikke anvendelse, i det omfang AI-systemerne udfører en hjælpefunktion med henblik på standardredigering eller ikke i væsentlig grad ændrer de inputdata, der leveres af idriftsætteren eller semantikken heraf, eller, hvis det ved lov er tilladt for at afsløre, forebygge, efterforske eller retsforfølge strafbare handlinger.
|
|
Artikel 50 3.
|
Idriftsættere af et system til følelsesgenkendelse eller et system til biometrisk kategorisering underretter de fysiske personer, der udsættes herfor, om driften af systemet og behandler personoplysningerne i overensstemmelse med forordning (EU) 2016/679 og (EU) 2018/1725 og direktiv (EU) 2016/680, alt efter hvad der er relevant. Denne forpligtelse finder ikke anvendelse på AI-systemer, der anvendes til biometrisk kategorisering og følelsesgenkendelse, og som i ved lov er godkendt til at afsløre, forebygge eller efterforske strafbare handlinger, med forbehold af passende sikkerhedsforanstaltninger for tredjemands rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder og i overensstemmelse med EU-retten.
|
|
Artikel 50 4.
|
Idriftsættere af et AI-system, der genererer eller manipulerer billed-, lyd- eller videoindhold, der udgør en deepfake, skal oplyse, at indholdet er blevet genereret kunstigt eller manipuleret. Denne forpligtelse gælder ikke, hvis anvendelsen ved lov er tilladt for at afsløre, forebygge, efterforske eller retsforfølge strafbare handlinger. Hvis indholdet er en del af et oplagt kunstnerisk, kreativt, satirisk, fiktivt eller tilsvarende arbejde eller program, er gennemsigtighedsforpligtelserne i dette stykke begrænset til oplysning om eksistensen af sådant genereret eller manipuleret indhold på en passende måde, der ikke er til gene for visningen eller nydelsen af værket. Idriftsættere af et AI-system, der genererer eller manipulerer tekst, der offentliggøres med det formål at informere offentligheden om spørgsmål af offentlig interesse, skal oplyse, at teksten er blevet kunstigt genereret eller manipuleret. Denne forpligtelse finder ikke anvendelse, hvis anvendelsen ved lov er tilladt for at afsløre, forebygge, efterforske eller retsforfølge strafbare handlinger, eller hvis det AI-genererede indhold har gennemgået en proces med menneskelig gennemgang eller redaktionel kontrol, og hvis en fysisk eller juridisk person har det redaktionelle ansvar for offentliggørelsen af indholdet.
|
|
Artikel 50 5.
|
De oplysninger, der er omhandlet i stk. 1-4, gives til de pågældende fysiske personer på en klar og synlig måde senest på tidspunktet for den første interaktion eller eksponering. Oplysningerne skal være i overensstemmelse med gældende tilgængelighedskrav.
|
|
Artikel 50 6.
|
Stk. 1-4 berører ikke kravene og forpligtelserne i kapitel III og berører ikke andre gennemsigtighedsforpligtelser, der er fastsat i EU-retten eller national ret, for idriftsættere af AI-systemer.
|
|
Artikel 50 7.
|
Kommissionen tilskynder til og letter udarbejdelsen af praksiskodekser på EU-plan for at lette en effektiv gennemførelse af forpligtelserne vedrørende påvisning, markering og mærkning af kunstigt genereret eller manipuleret indhold. Kommissionen vurderer under størst mulig hensyntagen til AI-udvalgets udtalelse, om overholdelse af disse praksiskodekser er tilstrækkelig til at sikre overholdelse af de forpligtelser, der er fastsat i denne artikels stk. 2 og 4, i overensstemmelse med proceduren i artikel 56, stk. 6. Hvis Kommissionen finder, at praksiskodeksen ikke er tilstrækkelig, kan den vedtage en gennemførelsesretsakt, der præciserer de fælles regler for gennemførelsen af disse forpligtelser efter undersøgelsesproceduren, jf. artikel 98, stk. 2.
|
,
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede standarder
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede standarder
Standarder
| Kilde |
Krav |
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Output Marking
Description
Mechanisms exist to mark output from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) in a machine-readable format so it is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Label AI-generated content when distributing it
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Policy requiring labeling of AI-generated content
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal AI content marking policy ∙ Machine-readable metadata for AI content
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI content marking program ∙ Technical implementation of C2PA or similar standards
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI content marking framework ∙ C2PA standard implementation ∙ Automated content marking in AI pipelines
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 mark output from AAT in a machine-readable format so it is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
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
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI user transparency program ∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework ∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms ∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)
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 ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
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
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI user transparency program ∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework ∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms ∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)
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 ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
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
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Use Notification To Users
Description
Mechanisms exist to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Inform users when AI is making or assisting decisions affecting them
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ User notification policy for AI-assisted decisions
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal user notification policy and procedures for AI decision support
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI user transparency program ∙ Automated user notifications for AI decisions
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI user transparency framework ∙ Automated disclosure mechanisms ∙ Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR)
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 ensure AAT that make decisions, or assist in making decisions, inform the people in a clear manner that they are: (1) Utilizing an AAT solution; and (2) Expected to validate the output for relevance and accuracy.
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.
|
|