+Artículo 5 Prácticas de IA prohibidas
---+Artículo 5 1.
---+Article 5 1a.
---+Article 5 1b.
---+Artículo 5 2.
---+Artículo 5 3.
---+Artículo 5 4.
---+Artículo 5 5.
---+Artículo 5 6.
---+Artículo 5 7.
---+Artículo 5 8.
|
Artículo 5 Prácticas de IA prohibidas
-
1. Resumen
| Título |
Regulación |
|
Artículo 5 1.
|
Quedan prohibidas las siguientes prácticas de IA:
a)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio o la utilización de un sistema de IA que se sirva de técnicas subliminales que trasciendan la conciencia de una persona o de técnicas deliberadamente manipuladoras o engañosas con el objetivo o el efecto de alterar de manera sustancial el comportamiento de una persona o un colectivo de personas, mermando de manera apreciable su capacidad para tomar una decisión informada y haciendo que tomen una decisión que de otro modo no habrían tomado, de un modo que provoque, o sea razonablemente probable que provoque, perjuicios considerables a esa persona, a otra persona o a un colectivo de personas;
b)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio o la utilización de un sistema de IA que explote alguna de las vulnerabilidades de una persona física o un determinado colectivo de personas derivadas de su edad o discapacidad, o de una situación social o económica específica, con la finalidad o el efecto de alterar de manera sustancial el comportamiento de dicha persona o de una persona que pertenezca a dicho colectivo de un modo que provoque, o sea razonablemente probable que provoque, perjuicios considerables a esa persona o a otra;
▼M1
b bis)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio o la utilización de un sistema de IA que genere o manipule imágenes, vídeos o audios realistas o material similar de las partes íntimas de una persona física identificable, o de una persona física identificable que participe en actividades sexualmente explícitas, sin el consentimiento libre, específico, informado e inequívoco y explícito de dicha persona para tal generación o manipulación;
b ter)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio o la utilización de un sistema de IA que genere o manipule material o espectáculos en el sentido del artículo 2, letras c) y e), de la Directiva 2011/93/UE, excepto cuando se aplique una defensa de «forma ilícita» en virtud del Derecho nacional;
▼B
c)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio o la utilización de sistemas de IA para evaluar o clasificar a personas físicas o a colectivos de personas durante un período determinado de tiempo atendiendo a su comportamiento social o a características personales o de su personalidad conocidas, inferidas o predichas, de forma que la puntuación ciudadana resultante provoque una o varias de las situaciones siguientes:
i)
un trato perjudicial o desfavorable hacia determinadas personas físicas o colectivos de personas en contextos sociales que no guarden relación con los contextos donde se generaron o recabaron los datos originalmente,
ii)
un trato perjudicial o desfavorable hacia determinadas personas físicas o colectivos de personas que sea injustificado o desproporcionado con respecto a su comportamiento social o la gravedad de este;
d)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio para este fin específico o el uso de un sistema de IA para realizar evaluaciones de riesgos de personas físicas con el fin de valorar o predecir el riesgo de que una persona física cometa un delito basándose únicamente en la elaboración del perfil de una persona física o en la evaluación de los rasgos y características de su personalidad; esta prohibición no se aplicará a los sistemas de IA utilizados para apoyar la valoración humana de la implicación de una persona en una actividad delictiva que ya se base en hechos objetivos y verificables directamente relacionados con una actividad delictiva;
e)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio para este fin específico o el uso de sistemas de IA que creen o amplíen bases de datos de reconocimiento facial mediante la extracción no selectiva de imágenes faciales de internet o de circuitos cerrados de televisión;
f)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio para este fin específico o el uso de sistemas de IA para inferir las emociones de una persona física en los lugares de trabajo y en los centros educativos, excepto cuando el sistema de IA esté destinado a ser instalado o introducido en el mercado por motivos médicos o de seguridad;
g)
la introducción en el mercado, la puesta en servicio para este fin específico o el uso de sistemas de categorización biométrica que clasifiquen individualmente a las personas físicas sobre la base de sus datos biométricos para deducir o inferir su raza, opiniones políticas, afiliación sindical, convicciones religiosas o filosóficas, vida sexual u orientación sexual; esta prohibición no incluye el etiquetado o filtrado de conjuntos de datos biométricos adquiridos lícitamente, como imágenes, basado en datos biométricos ni la categorización de datos biométricos en el ámbito de la garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho;
h)
el uso de sistemas de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho, salvo y en la medida en que dicho uso sea estrictamente necesario para alcanzar uno o varios de los objetivos siguientes:
i)
la búsqueda selectiva de víctimas concretas de secuestro, trata de seres humanos o explotación sexual de seres humanos, así como la búsqueda de personas desaparecidas,
ii)
la prevención de una amenaza específica, importante e inminente para la vida o la seguridad física de las personas físicas o de una amenaza real y actual o real y previsible de un atentado terrorista,
iii)
la localización o identificación de una persona sospechosa de haber cometido un delito a fin de llevar a cabo una investigación o un enjuiciamiento penales o de ejecutar una sanción penal por alguno de los delitos mencionados en el anexo II que en el Estado miembro de que se trate se castigue con una pena o una medida de seguridad privativas de libertad cuya duración máxima sea de al menos cuatro años.
El párrafo primero, letra h), se entiende sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 del Reglamento (UE) 2016/679 en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos biométricos con fines distintos de la garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho.
|
|
Article 5 1a.
|
For the purposes of paragraph 1, first subparagraph, points (ba) and (bb):
(a)
the placing on the market or putting into service of an AI system that generates or manipulates the material or performance referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (ba) or (bb) is only prohibited where:
(i)
that generation or manipulation is the intended purpose of the AI system; or
(ii)
the system’s design, training, architecture, capabilities or user-facing functionalities make that generation or manipulation a reasonably foreseeable and reproducible outcome, without requiring significant technical modification, and the system does not have reasonable and adequate technical safety measures and other safeguards to reliably prevent that generation or manipulation, taking into account reasonably foreseeable misuse, and to correct observed or reported misuse;
(b)
the use of an AI system that generates or manipulates the material or performance referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, points (ba) and (bb) is only prohibited where the deployer uses the system for the purpose of generating or manipulating such material or performance.
|
|
Article 5 1b.
|
For the purposes of paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (ba), an AI system that manipulates material in a way that does not increase the exposure of any depicted intimate parts or alter the nature of any depicted sexually explicit activities shall not constitute manipulation.
|
|
Artículo 5 2.
|
El uso de sistemas de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho para cualquiera de los objetivos mencionados en el apartado 1, párrafo primero, letra h), debe desplegarse para los fines establecidos en dicha letra, únicamente para confirmar la identidad de la persona que constituya el objetivo específico y tendrá en cuenta los siguientes aspectos:
a)
la naturaleza de la situación que dé lugar al posible uso, y en particular la gravedad, probabilidad y magnitud del perjuicio que se produciría de no utilizarse el sistema;
b)
las consecuencias que tendría el uso del sistema en los derechos y las libertades de las personas implicadas, y en particular la gravedad, probabilidad y magnitud de dichas consecuencias.
Además, el uso de sistemas de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho para cualquiera de los objetivos mencionados en el apartado 1, párrafo primero, letra h), del presente artículo deberá cumplir garantías y condiciones necesarias y proporcionadas en relación con el uso de conformidad con el Derecho nacional que autorice dicho uso, en particular en lo que respecta a las limitaciones temporales, geográficas y personales. El uso del sistema de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público solo se autorizará si la autoridad garante del cumplimiento del Derecho ha completado una evaluación de impacto relativa a los derechos fundamentales según lo dispuesto en el artículo 27 y ha registrado el sistema en la base de datos de la UE de conformidad con el artículo 49. No obstante, en casos de urgencia debidamente justificados, se podrá empezar a utilizar tales sistemas sin el registro en la base de datos de la UE, siempre que dicho registro se complete sin demora indebida.
|
|
Artículo 5 3.
|
A los efectos del apartado 1, párrafo primero, letra h), y el apartado 2, todo uso de un sistema de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho estará supeditado a la concesión de una autorización previa por parte de una autoridad judicial o una autoridad administrativa independiente cuya decisión sea vinculante del Estado miembro en el que vaya a utilizarse dicho sistema, que se expedirá previa solicitud motivada y de conformidad con las normas detalladas del Derecho nacional mencionadas en el apartado 5. No obstante, en una situación de urgencia debidamente justificada, se podrá empezar a utilizar tal sistema sin autorización siempre que se solicite dicha autorización sin demora indebida, a más tardar en un plazo de veinticuatro horas. Si se rechaza dicha autorización, el uso se interrumpirá con efecto inmediato y todos los datos, así como los resultados y la información de salida generados por dicho uso, se desecharán y suprimirán inmediatamente. La autoridad judicial competente o una autoridad administrativa independiente cuya decisión sea vinculante únicamente concederá la autorización cuando tenga constancia, sobre la base de pruebas objetivas o de indicios claros que se le aporten, de que el uso del sistema de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» es necesario y proporcionado para alcanzar alguno de los objetivos especificados en el apartado 1, párrafo primero, letra h), el cual se indicará en la solicitud, y, en particular, se limita a lo estrictamente necesario en lo que se refiere al período de tiempo, así como al ámbito geográfico y personal. Al pronunciarse al respecto, esa autoridad tendrá en cuenta los aspectos mencionados en el apartado 2. Dicha autoridad no podrá adoptar ninguna decisión que produzca efectos jurídicos adversos para una persona exclusivamente sobre la base de los resultados de salida del sistema de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real».
|
|
Artículo 5 4.
|
Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el apartado 3, todo uso de un sistema de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho se notificará a la autoridad de vigilancia del mercado pertinente y a la autoridad nacional de protección de datos de conformidad con las normas nacionales a que se refiere el apartado 5. La notificación contendrá, como mínimo, la información especificada en el apartado 6 y no incluirá datos operativos sensibles.
|
|
Artículo 5 5.
|
Los Estados miembros podrán decidir contemplar la posibilidad de autorizar, ya sea total o parcialmente, el uso de sistemas de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho dentro de los límites y en las condiciones que se indican en el apartado 1, párrafo primero, letra h), y los apartados 2 y 3. Los Estados miembros de que se trate deberán establecer en sus respectivos Derechos nacionales las normas detalladas necesarias aplicables a la solicitud, la concesión y el ejercicio de las autorizaciones a que se refiere el apartado 3, así como a la supervisión y la presentación de informes relacionadas con estas. Dichas normas especificarán también para qué objetivos de los enumerados en el apartado 1, párrafo primero, letra h), y en su caso en relación con qué delitos de los indicados en la letra h), inciso iii), se podrá autorizar a las autoridades competentes para que utilicen esos sistemas con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho. Los Estados miembros notificarán dichas normas a la Comisión a más tardar treinta días después de su adopción. Los Estados miembros podrán adoptar, de conformidad con el Derecho de la Unión, leyes más restrictivas sobre el uso de sistemas de identificación biométrica remota.
|
|
Artículo 5 6.
|
Las autoridades nacionales de vigilancia del mercado y las autoridades nacionales de protección de datos de los Estados miembros a las que se haya notificado el uso de sistemas de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho con arreglo al apartado 4 presentarán a la Comisión informes anuales sobre dicho uso. A tal fin, la Comisión facilitará a los Estados miembros y a las autoridades nacionales de vigilancia del mercado y de protección de datos un modelo que incluya información sobre el número de decisiones adoptadas por las autoridades judiciales competentes o una autoridad administrativa independiente cuya decisión sea vinculante en relación con las solicitudes de autorización de conformidad con el apartado 3, así como su resultado.
|
|
Artículo 5 7.
|
La Comisión publicará informes anuales sobre el uso de sistemas de identificación biométrica remota «en tiempo real» en espacios de acceso público con fines de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho elaborados basados en datos agregados relativos a los Estados miembros sobre la base de los informes anuales a que se refiere el apartado 6. Dichos informes anuales no incluirán datos operativos sensibles de las actividades de garantía del cumplimiento del Derecho conexas.
|
|
Artículo 5 8.
|
El presente artículo no afectará a las prohibiciones aplicables cuando una práctica de IA infrinja otras disposiciones de Derecho de la Unión.
|
,
1.1 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Estándares relacionados
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Estándares relacionados
Estándares
| Fuente |
Requisito |
|
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.
|
|