+Άρθρο 92 Εξουσία διεξαγωγής αξιολογήσεων
---+Άρθρο 92 1.
---+Άρθρο 92 2.
---+Άρθρο 92 3.
---+Άρθρο 92 4.
---+Άρθρο 92 5.
---+Άρθρο 92 6.
---+Άρθρο 92 7.
|
Άρθρο 92 Εξουσία διεξαγωγής αξιολογήσεων
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Κανονισμός |
|
Άρθρο 92 1.
|
Η Υπηρεσία ΤΝ, κατόπιν διαβούλευσης με το Συμβούλιο Τεχνητής Νοημοσύνης, μπορεί να διεξάγει αξιολογήσεις του σχετικού μοντέλου ΤΝ γενικού σκοπού:
α)
για να αξιολογεί τη συμμόρφωση του παρόχου με τις υποχρεώσεις που απορρέουν από τον παρόντα κανονισμό, όταν οι πληροφορίες που συλλέγονται δυνάμει του άρθρου 91 είναι ανεπαρκείς· ή
β)
για να διερευνά συστημικούς κινδύνους σε επίπεδο Ένωσης μοντέλων ΤΝ γενικού σκοπού με συστημικό κίνδυνο, ιδίως μετά από ειδική προειδοποίηση της επιστημονικής ομάδας σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 90 παράγραφος 1 στοιχείο α).
|
|
Άρθρο 92 2.
|
Η Επιτροπή μπορεί να αποφασίσει να ορίσει ανεξάρτητους εμπειρογνώμονες για τη διενέργεια αξιολογήσεων εξ ονόματός της, μεταξύ άλλων από την επιστημονική ομάδα που συστήνεται δυνάμει του άρθρου 68. Οι ανεξάρτητοι εμπειρογνώμονες που διορίζονται για το καθήκον αυτό πληρούν τα κριτήρια που περιγράφονται στο άρθρο 68 παράγραφος 2.
|
|
Άρθρο 92 3.
|
Για τους σκοπούς της παραγράφου 1, η Επιτροπή μπορεί να ζητήσει πρόσβαση στο σχετικό μοντέλο ΤΝ γενικού σκοπού μέσω ΔΠΕ ή περαιτέρω κατάλληλων τεχνικών μέσων και εργαλείων, μεταξύ άλλων πηγαίου κώδικα.
|
|
Άρθρο 92 4.
|
Το αίτημα πρόσβασης αναφέρει τη νομική βάση, τον σκοπό και τους λόγους του αιτήματος και ορίζει την προθεσμία εντός της οποίας πρέπει να παρασχεθεί η πρόσβαση, καθώς και τα πρόστιμα που προβλέπονται στο άρθρο 101 για τη μη παροχή πρόσβασης.
|
|
Άρθρο 92 5.
|
Οι πάροχοι του σχετικού μοντέλου ΤΝ γενικού σκοπού ή ο εκπρόσωπός του παρέχουν τις ζητούμενες πληροφορίες. Στην περίπτωση νομικών προσώπων, εταιρειών ή επιχειρήσεων ή όταν ο πάροχος στερείται νομικής προσωπικότητας, τα πρόσωπα που είναι επιφορτισμένα με την εκπροσώπησή τους βάσει του νόμου ή του καταστατικού τους παρέχουν τη ζητούμενη πρόσβαση για λογαριασμό του παρόχου του σχετικού μοντέλου ΤΝ γενικού σκοπού.
|
|
Άρθρο 92 6.
|
Η Επιτροπή εκδίδει εκτελεστικές πράξεις που καθορίζουν τις λεπτομερείς ρυθμίσεις και τους όρους για τις αξιολογήσεις, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των λεπτομερών ρυθμίσεων για τη συμμετοχή ανεξάρτητων εμπειρογνωμόνων, και τη διαδικασία επιλογής τους. Οι εν λόγω εκτελεστικές πράξεις εκδίδονται σύμφωνα με τη διαδικασία εξέτασης που αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 98 παράγραφος 2.
|
|
Άρθρο 92 7.
|
Πριν ζητήσει πρόσβαση στο σχετικό μοντέλο ΤΝ γενικού σκοπού, η Υπηρεσία ΤΝ μπορεί να ξεκινήσει διαρθρωμένο διάλογο με τον πάροχο του μοντέλου ΤΝ γενικού σκοπού για τη συλλογή περισσότερων πληροφοριών σχετικά με την εσωτερική δοκιμή του μοντέλου, τις εσωτερικές διασφαλίσεις για την πρόληψη συστημικών κινδύνων και άλλες εσωτερικές διαδικασίες και μέτρα που έχει λάβει ο πάροχος για τον μετριασμό των εν λόγω κινδύνων.
|
,
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικά πρότυπα
Πρότυπα
| Πηγή |
Απαίτηση |
|
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.
|
|