+Artikkel 7 III lisa muutmine
---+Artikkel 7 1.
---+Artikkel 7 2.
---+Artikkel 7 3.
|
Artikkel 7 III lisa muutmine
-
1. Ülevaade
| Pealkiri |
Regulatsioon |
|
Artikkel 7 1.
|
Komisjonil on õigus võtta kooskõlas artikliga 97 vastu delegeeritud õigusakte, et muuta III lisa, lisades sellesse suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteeme või muutes nende kasutusjuhtumeid, kui täidetud on mõlemad järgmised tingimused:
a)
tehisintellektisüsteemid on mõeldud kasutamiseks III lisas loetletud valdkondades;
b)
tehisintellektisüsteemid võivad kahjustada tervist ja ohutust või avaldada negatiivset mõju põhiõigustele ning selline risk on samaväärne või suurem kui III lisas juba osutatud suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemide põhjustatud kahju või negatiivse mõju riski puhul.
|
|
Artikkel 7 2.
|
Lõike 1 punkti b kohase tingimuse hindamisel võtab komisjon arvesse järgmisi kriteeriume:
a)
mis on tehisintellektisüsteemi sihtotstarve;
b)
millises ulatuses on tehisintellektisüsteemi kasutatud või tõenäoliselt kasutatakse;
c)
tehisintellektisüsteemis töödeldavate ja kasutatavate andmete laad ja hulk, eelkõige see, kas töödeldakse isikuandmete eriliike;
d)
mil määral toimib tehisintellektisüsteem autonoomselt ja milline on inimese võimalus eirata otsust või soovitusi, mis võivad põhjustada võimalikku kahju;
e)
millises ulatuses on tehisintellektisüsteemi kasutamine juba teinud kahju tervisele ja ohutusele või avaldanud negatiivset mõju põhiõigustele või tekitanud tõsist muret seoses sellise kahju või negatiivse mõju tekkimise võimalusega, nagu on näidanud näiteks riikide pädevatele asutustele esitatud aruanded või dokumenteeritud väited või muud aruanded, kui see on asjakohane;
f)
milline oleks sellise kahju või negatiivse mõju võimalik ulatus, eeskätt intensiivsus ja võime mõjutada paljusid isikuid või ebaproportsionaalselt mõjutada üht kindlat isikute rühma;
g)
millises ulatuses sõltuvad potentsiaalselt kahjustatud või negatiivselt mõjutatud isikud tulemusest, milleni on jõutud tehisintellektisüsteemi abil, eeskätt seetõttu, et praktilistel või õiguslikel põhjustel ei ole mõistlikult võimalik loobuda selle tulemuse rakendamisest;
h)
mil määral esineb võimu ebavõrdsus, või on potentsiaalselt kahjustatud või negatiivselt mõjutatud isikud tehisintellektisüsteemi juurutaja suhtes kaitsetus olukorras, eelkõige staatuse, autoriteedi, teadmiste, majanduslike või sotsiaalsete olude või vanuse tõttu;
i)
millises ulatuses on tehisintellektisüsteemi kaasamisel saavutatud tulemus kergesti parandatav või tagasipööratav, võttes arvesse selle parandamiseks või tagasipööramiseks kättesaadavaid tehnilisi lahendusi, kusjuures tulemust, millel on negatiivne mõju tervisele, ohutusele või põhiõigustele ei peeta kergesti parandatavaks või tagasipööratavaks;
j)
tehisintellektisüsteemi juurutamisest üksikisikutele, rühmadele või ühiskonnale laiemalt tuleneva kasu suurus ja tõenäosus, sealhulgas võimalik tooteohutuse parendamine;
k)
millises ulatuses on kehtiva liidu õigusega ette nähtud:
i)
mõjusad õiguskaitsevahendid seoses tehisintellektisüsteemist tulenevate riskidega, välja arvatud kahjunõuded;
ii)
mõjusad meetmed, et neid riske ära hoida või neid oluliselt vähendada.
|
|
Artikkel 7 3.
|
Komisjonil on õigus võtta kooskõlas artikliga 97 vastu delegeeritud õigusakte, et muuta III lisas esitatud loetelu, jättes sellest välja suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteeme, kui täidetud on mõlemad järgmised tingimused:
a)
asjaomane suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteem ei tekita enam olulisi riske põhiõigustele, tervisele või ohutusele, võttes arvesse lõikes 2 loetletud kriteeriume;
b)
väljajätmine ei vähenda liidu õiguse kohase tervise, ohutuse ja põhiõiguste kaitse üldist taset.
|
,
1.1 Viited
1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded
1.3 Seotud standardid
2. Tuvastatud nõuded
3. Seotud standardid
Standardid
| Allikas |
Nõue |
|
SCF
|
High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization
Description
Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-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.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ 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 AST 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 categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
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
|
High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization
Description
Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS
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
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-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.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ 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 AST 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 categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
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.
|
|