+Artikel 92 Beføjelse til at foretage evalueringer
---+Artikel 92 1.
---+Artikel 92 2.
---+Artikel 92 3.
---+Artikel 92 4.
---+Artikel 92 5.
---+Artikel 92 6.
---+Artikel 92 7.

Artikel 92 Beføjelse til at foretage evalueringer

-

1. Oversigt

,
Artikel 92 1.

AI-kontoret kan efter høring af AI-udvalget foretage evalueringer af den pågældende AI-model til almen brug:

a) 

med henblik på at vurdere, om udbyderen overholder forpligtelserne i henhold til denne forordning, hvis de indsamlede oplysninger i henhold til artikel 91 er utilstrækkelige, eller

b) 

med henblik på at undersøge systemiske risici på EU-plan for AI-modeller til almen brug med systemisk risiko, navnlig efter en kvalificeret varsling fra det videnskabelige panel i overensstemmelse med artikel 90, stk. 1, litra a).
Artikel 92 2.
Kommissionen kan beslutte at udpege uafhængige eksperter til at foretage evalueringer på dens vegne, herunder fra det videnskabelige panel, der er oprettet i henhold til artikel 68. Uafhængige eksperter, der udpeges til denne opgave, skal opfylde kriterierne anført i artikel 68, stk. 2.
Artikel 92 3.
Med henblik på stk. 1 kan Kommissionen anmode om adgang til den pågældende AI-model til almen brug via API'er eller andre hensigtsmæssige tekniske midler og værktøjer, herunder kildekode.
Artikel 92 4.
Anmodningen om adgang skal angive retsgrundlaget, formålet med og begrundelsen for anmodningen og fastsætte tidsfristen, inden for hvilken der skal gives adgang, samt bøder, der er fastsat i artikel 101, ved manglende adgang.
Artikel 92 5.
Udbydere af den pågældende AI-model til almen brug eller dennes repræsentant skal afgive de oplysninger, der anmodes om. Såfremt det drejer sig om juridiske personer, selskaber eller firmaer, eller hvis udbyderen ikke har status som juridisk person, skal de personer, som ved lov eller ifølge deres vedtægter har beføjelse til at repræsentere dem, give den adgang, der anmodes om på vegne af udbyderen af den pågældende AI-model til almen brug.
Artikel 92 6.
Kommissionen vedtager gennemførelsesretsakter, der fastsætter de nærmere ordninger og bestemmelser og betingelser for evalueringerne, herunder de nærmere ordninger for inddragelse af uafhængige eksperter, og proceduren for udvælgelse heraf. Disse gennemførelsesretsakter vedtages efter undersøgelsesproceduren, jf. artikel 98, stk. 2.
Artikel 92 7.
Inden der anmodes om adgang til den pågældende AI-model til almen brug, kan AI-kontoret indlede en struktureret dialog med udbyderen af AI-modellen til almen brug for at indsamle flere oplysninger om den interne afprøvning af modellen, interne sikkerhedsforanstaltninger til forebyggelse af systemiske risici og andre interne procedurer og foranstaltninger, som udbyderen har truffet for at afbøde sådanne risici.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede standarder

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede standarder

Standarder
SCF Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquires

Description

Mechanisms exist to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with the organization's legal counsel for guidance on how to respond to legal orders (e.g., court orders and investigations).

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC 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 CPL 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 determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

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 Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquires

Description

Mechanisms exist to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with the organization's legal counsel for guidance on how to respond to legal orders (e.g., court orders and investigations).

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC 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 CPL 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 determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

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.