+92 artikla Valtuudet suorittaa arviointeja
---+92 artikla 1.
---+92 artikla 2.
---+92 artikla 3.
---+92 artikla 4.
---+92 artikla 5.
---+92 artikla 6.
---+92 artikla 7.

92 artikla Valtuudet suorittaa arviointeja

-

1. Yleiskatsaus

,
92 artikla 1.

Tekoälytoimisto voi tekoälyneuvostoa kuultuaan tehdä arviointeja kyseisestä yleiskäyttöisestä tekoälymallista:

a) 

arvioidakseen, noudattaako tarjoaja tämän asetuksen mukaisia velvoitteita, jos 91 artiklan nojalla kerätyt tiedot ovat riittämättömiä; tai

b) 

tutkiakseen unionin tasolla sellaisten yleiskäyttöisten tekoälymallien systeemisiä riskejä, joihin liittyy systeeminen riski, erityisesti tiedelautakunnan 90 artiklan 1 kohdan a alakohdan mukaisesti antaman pätevän varoituksen perusteella.
92 artikla 2.
Komissio voi päättää, että se nimittää riippumattomia asiantuntijoita suorittamaan arviointeja sen puolesta, myös 68 artiklan nojalla perustetusta tieteellisestä paneelista. Tehtävään nimitettyjen riippumattomien asiantuntijoiden on täytettävä 68 artiklan 2 kohdassa esitetyt vaatimukset.
92 artikla 3.
Edellä olevan 1 kohdan soveltamiseksi komissio voi pyytää pääsyä kyseiseen yleiskäyttöiseen tekoälymalliin ohjelmointirajapintojen tai muiden asianmukaisten teknisten keinojen ja välineiden, myös lähdekoodin, kautta.
92 artikla 4.
Pääsyä koskevassa pyynnössä on mainittava pyynnön oikeusperusta, tarkoitus ja syyt sekä asetettava määräaika, jonka kuluessa pääsy on annettava, sekä 101 artiklassa säädetyt sakot, jos pääsyä ei ole annettu.
92 artikla 5.
Asianomaisen yleiskäyttöisen tekoälymallin tarjoajien tai sen edustajan on annettava pyydetyt tiedot. Jos kyse on oikeushenkilöistä, yhtiöistä tai yrityksistä tai jos tarjoajalla ei ole oikeushenkilön asemaa, henkilöiden, joilla on lain tai yhtiöjärjestystensä mukaan kelpoisuus edustaa niitä, on annettava pyydetty pääsy asianomaisen yleiskäyttöisen tekoälymallin tarjoajan puolesta.
92 artikla 6.
Komissio hyväksyy täytäntöönpanosäädöksiä, joissa vahvistetaan arviointien yksityiskohtaiset järjestelyt ja edellytykset, mukaan lukien riippumattomien asiantuntijoiden osallistumista koskevat yksityiskohtaiset järjestelyt valintamenettely. Nämä täytäntöönpanosäädökset hyväksytään 98 artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitettua tarkastelumenettelyä noudattaen.
92 artikla 7.
Ennen kuin tekoälytoimisto pyytää pääsyä kyseiseen yleiskäyttöiseen tekoälymalliin, se voi käynnistää jäsennellyn vuoropuhelun yleiskäyttöisen tekoälymallin tarjoajan kanssa kerätäkseen lisätietoja mallin sisäisestä testauksesta, sisäisistä suojatoimista systeemisten riskien ehkäisemiseksi sekä muista sisäisistä menettelyistä ja toimenpiteistä, joita tarjoaja on toteuttanut tällaisten riskien lieventämiseksi.

1.1 Viittaukset

1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset

1.3 Liittyvät standardit

2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset

Vaatimukset

3. Liittyvät standardit

Standardit
SCF Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquires

Description

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

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with the organization's legal counsel for guidance on how to respond to legal orders (e.g., court orders and investigations).

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquires

Description

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

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

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

∙ Legal review

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with the organization's legal counsel for guidance on how to respond to legal orders (e.g., court orders and investigations).

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.