+7 artikla Liitteen III muuttaminen
---+7 artikla 1.
---+7 artikla 2.
---+7 artikla 3.
|
7 artikla Liitteen III muuttaminen
-
1. Yleiskatsaus
| Otsikko |
Sääntely |
|
7 artikla 1.
|
Siirretään komissiolle valta antaa 97 artiklan mukaisesti delegoituja säädöksiä liitteen III muuttamiseksi lisäämällä siihen suuririskisiä tekoälyjärjestelmiä koskevia käyttötapauksia tai muokkaamalla niitä, jos molemmat seuraavista edellytyksistä täyttyvät:
a)
tekoälyjärjestelmiä on tarkoitus käyttää millä tahansa liitteessä III luetelluista aloista;
b)
tekoälyjärjestelmät aiheuttavat terveys- ja turvallisuushaitan riskin tai perusoikeuksiin kohdistuvan kielteisen vaikutuksen riskin, joka on vähintään yhtä suuri kuin liitteessä III jo tarkoitettujen suuririskisten tekoälyjärjestelmien aiheuttaman haitan tai kielteisen vaikutuksen riski.
|
|
7 artikla 2.
|
Arvioidessaan 1 kohdan b alakohdan mukaista edellytystä komissio ottaa huomioon seuraavat perusteet:
a)
tekoälyjärjestelmän käyttötarkoitus;
b)
missä määrin tekoälyjärjestelmää on käytetty tai todennäköisesti käytetään;
c)
tekoälyjärjestelmän käsittelemien ja käyttämien tietojen luonne ja määrä, erityisesti se, käsitelläänkö erityisiä henkilötietoryhmiä;
d)
missä määrin tekoälyjärjestelmä toimii itsenäisesti, ja missä määrin ihmisen on mahdollista kumota päätös tai suositukset, jotka voisivat aiheuttaa mahdollista haittaa;
e)
missä määrin tekoälyjärjestelmän käyttö on jo aiheuttanut haittaa terveydelle ja turvallisuudelle, vaikuttanut kielteisesti perusoikeuksiin tai herättänyt merkittävää huolta tällaisen haitan tai kielteisen vaikutuksen todennäköisyydestä, mikä käy ilmi esimerkiksi kansallisille toimivaltaisille viranomaisille toimitetuista raporteista tai dokumentoiduista väitteistä taikka muista asianmukaisista raporteista;
f)
tällaisen haitan tai tällaisen haitallisen vaikutuksen mahdollinen laajuus, erityisesti sen voimakkuus ja kyky vaikuttaa useisiin henkilöihin tai vaikuttaa suhteettomasti erityiseen henkilöryhmään;
g)
missä määrin henkilöt, joille mahdollisesti aiheutuu haittaa tai joihin mahdollisesti kohdistuu kielteinen vaikutus, ovat riippuvaisia tekoälyjärjestelmän tuottamasta tuloksesta, erityisesti koska käytännöllisistä tai oikeudellisista syistä ei ole kohtuudella mahdollista olla noudattamatta tätä tulosta;
h)
missä määrin on kyse vallan epätasapainosta tai missä määrin henkilöt, joille mahdollisesti aiheutuu haittaa tai kohdistuu kielteinen vaikutus, ovat haavoittuvassa asemassa tekoälyjärjestelmän käyttöönottajaan nähden, erityisesti aseman, valta-aseman, tietämyksen, taloudellisten tai sosiaalisten olosuhteiden tai iän vuoksi;
i)
missä määrin tekoälyjärjestelmän avulla tuotettu tulos on helposti korjattavissa tai peruutettavissa, kun otetaan huomioon korjaukseen tai peruuttamiseen käytettävissä olevat tekniset ratkaisut, jolloin tulosten, joilla on haitallisia vaikutuksia terveyteen, turvallisuuteen tai perusoikeuksiin, ei katsota olevan helposti korjattavissa tai peruutettavissa;
j)
tekoälyjärjestelmän käyttöönotosta yksilöille, ryhmille tai koko yhteiskunnalle koituvan hyödyn suuruus ja todennäköisyys, tuoteturvallisuuden mahdolliset parannukset mukaan lukien;
k)
missä määrin voimassa olevassa unionin oikeudessa säädetään
i)
tekoälyjärjestelmän aiheuttamiin riskeihin liittyvistä tehokkaista oikeussuojakeinoista, lukuun ottamatta vahingonkorvausvaateita;
ii)
tehokkaista toimenpiteistä kyseisten riskien ehkäisemiseksi tai vähentämiseksi merkittävästi.
|
|
7 artikla 3.
|
Siirretään komissiolle valta antaa 97 artiklan mukaisesti delegoituja säädöksiä liitteessä III olevan luettelon muuttamiseksi poistamalla siitä suuririskisiä tekoälyjärjestelmiä, jos molemmat seuraavista edellytyksistä täyttyvät:
a)
kyseessä oleva suuririskinen tekoälyjärjestelmä ei enää aiheuta merkittäviä riskejä perusoikeuksiin, terveyteen tai turvallisuuteen nähden ottaen huomioon 2 kohdassa luetellut kriteerit;
b)
poisto ei laske unionin oikeuden mukaisen terveyden, turvallisuuden ja perusoikeuksien suojan yleistä tasoa.
|
,
1.1 Viittaukset
1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset
1.3 Liittyvät standardit
2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset
Vaatimukset
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
3. Liittyvät standardit
Standardit
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
|
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.
|
|