+Article 5 Pratiques interdites en matière d’IA
---+Article 5 1.
---+Article 5 1a.
---+Article 5 1b.
---+Article 5 2.
---+Article 5 3.
---+Article 5 4.
---+Article 5 5.
---+Article 5 6.
---+Article 5 7.
---+Article 5 8.

Article 5 Pratiques interdites en matière d’IA

-

1. Vue d’ensemble

,
Article 5 1.

Les pratiques en matière d’IA suivantes sont interdites:

a) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service ou l’utilisation d’un système d’IA qui a recours à des techniques subliminales, au-dessous du seuil de conscience d’une personne, ou à des techniques délibérément manipulatrices ou trompeuses, avec pour objectif ou effet d’altérer substantiellement le comportement d’une personne ou d’un groupe de personnes en portant considérablement atteinte à leur capacité à prendre une décision éclairée, amenant ainsi la personne à prendre une décision qu’elle n’aurait pas prise autrement, d’une manière qui cause ou est raisonnablement susceptible de causer un préjudice important à cette personne, à une autre personne ou à un groupe de personnes;

b) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service ou l’utilisation d’un système d’IA qui exploite les éventuelles vulnérabilités dues à l’âge, au handicap ou à la situation sociale ou économique spécifique d’une personne physique ou d’un groupe de personnes donné avec pour objectif ou effet d’altérer substantiellement le comportement de cette personne ou d’un membre de ce groupe d’une manière qui cause ou est raisonnablement susceptible de causer un préjudice important à cette personne ou à un tiers;

▼M1

b bis) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service ou l'utilisation d'un système d'IA qui génère ou manipule des images, des vidéos, des contenus audio ou tout autre matériel similaire réalistes représentant les parties intimes d'une personne identifiable, ou une personne identifiable se livrant à des activités sexuellement explicites, sans le consentement libre, spécifique, éclairé, univoque et explicite de cette personne pour cette production ou manipulation;

b ter) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service ou l'utilisation d'un système d'IA qui génère ou manipule tout matériel ou spectacle au sens de l'article 2, points c) et e), de la directive 2011/93/UE, sauf lorsqu'une défense «sans droit» s'applique en vertu du droit national;

▼B

c) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service ou l’utilisation de systèmes d’IA pour l’évaluation ou la classification de personnes physiques ou de groupes de personnes au cours d’une période donnée en fonction de leur comportement social ou de caractéristiques personnelles ou de personnalité connues, déduites ou prédites, la note sociale conduisant à l’une ou l’autre des situations suivantes, ou aux deux:

i) 

le traitement préjudiciable ou défavorable de certaines personnes physiques ou de groupes de personnes dans des contextes sociaux dissociés du contexte dans lequel les données ont été générées ou collectées à l’origine;

ii) 

le traitement préjudiciable ou défavorable de certaines personnes ou de groupes de personnes, qui est injustifié ou disproportionné par rapport à leur comportement social ou à la gravité de celui-ci;

d) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service à cette fin spécifique ou l’utilisation d’un système d’IA pour mener des évaluations des risques des personnes physiques visant à évaluer ou à prédire le risque qu’une personne physique commette une infraction pénale, uniquement sur la base du profilage d’une personne physique ou de l’évaluation de ses traits de personnalité ou caractéristiques; cette interdiction ne s’applique pas aux systèmes d’IA utilisés pour étayer l’évaluation humaine de l’implication d’une personne dans une activité criminelle, qui est déjà fondée sur des faits objectifs et vérifiables, directement liés à une activité criminelle;

e) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service à cette fin spécifique ou l’utilisation de systèmes d’IA qui créent ou développent des bases de données de reconnaissance faciale par le moissonnage non ciblé d’images faciales provenant de l’internet ou de la vidéosurveillance;

f) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service à cette fin spécifique ou l’utilisation de systèmes d’IA pour inférer les émotions d’une personne physique sur le lieu de travail et dans les établissements d’enseignement, sauf lorsque l’utilisation du système d’IA est destinée à être mise en place ou mise sur le marché pour des raisons médicales ou de sécurité;

g) 

la mise sur le marché, la mise en service à cette fin spécifique ou l’utilisation de systèmes de catégorisation biométrique qui catégorisent individuellement les personnes physiques sur la base de leurs données biométriques afin d’arriver à des déductions ou des inférences concernant leur race, leurs opinions politiques, leur affiliation à une organisation syndicale, leurs convictions religieuses ou philosophiques, leur vie sexuelle ou leur orientation sexuelle; cette interdiction ne couvre pas l’étiquetage ou le filtrage d’ensembles de données biométriques acquis légalement, tels que des images, fondés sur des données biométriques ou la catégorisation de données biométriques dans le domaine répressif;

h) 

l’utilisation de systèmes d’identification biométrique à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public à des fins répressives, sauf si et dans la mesure où cette utilisation est strictement nécessaire eu égard à l’un des objectifs suivants:

i) 

la recherche ciblée de victimes spécifiques d’enlèvement, de la traite ou de l’exploitation sexuelle d’êtres humains, ainsi que la recherche de personnes disparues;

ii) 

la prévention d’une menace spécifique, substantielle et imminente pour la vie ou la sécurité physique de personnes physiques ou d’une menace réelle et actuelle ou réelle et prévisible d’attaque terroriste;

iii) 

la localisation ou l’identification d’une personne soupçonnée d’avoir commis une infraction pénale, aux fins de mener une enquête pénale, d’engager des poursuites ou d’exécuter une sanction pénale pour des infractions visées à l’annexe II et punissables dans l’État membre concerné d’une peine ou d’une mesure de sûreté privatives de liberté d’une durée maximale d’au moins quatre ans.

Le premier alinéa, point h), est sans préjudice de l’article 9 du règlement (UE) 2016/679 pour le traitement des données biométriques à des fins autres que répressives.
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.
Article 5 2.

L’utilisation de systèmes d’identification biométriques à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public à des fins répressives en vue de la réalisation de l’un des objectifs énumérés au paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, point h), n’est déployée aux fins énoncées audit point, que pour confirmer l’identité de la personne spécifiquement ciblée et tient compte des éléments suivants:

a) 

la nature de la situation donnant lieu à un éventuel recours au système, en particulier la gravité, la probabilité et l’ampleur du préjudice qui serait causé si le système n’était pas utilisé;

b) 

les conséquences de l’utilisation du système sur les droits et libertés de toutes les personnes concernées, notamment la gravité, la probabilité et l’ampleur de ces conséquences.

En outre, l’utilisation de systèmes d’identification biométriques à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public à des fins répressives en vue de la réalisation de l’un des objectifs énumérés au paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, point h), du présent article respecte les garanties et conditions nécessaires et proportionnées en ce qui concerne cette utilisation, conformément au droit national qui l’autorise, notamment eu égard aux limitations temporelles, géographiques et relatives aux personnes. L’utilisation du système d’identification biométrique à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public n’est autorisée que si l’autorité répressive a réalisé une analyse d’impact sur les droits fondamentaux conformément à l’article 27 et a enregistré le système dans la base de données de l’UE prévue par l’article 49. Toutefois, dans des cas d’urgence dûment justifiés, il est possible de commencer à utiliser ces systèmes sans enregistrement dans la base de données de l’UE, à condition que cet enregistrement soit effectué sans retard injustifié.
Article 5 3.
Aux fins du paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, point h), et du paragraphe 2, chaque utilisation à des fins répressives d’un système d’identification biométrique à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public est subordonnée à une autorisation préalable octroyée par une autorité judiciaire ou une autorité administrative indépendante dont la décision est contraignante de l’État membre dans lequel cette utilisation doit avoir lieu, délivrée sur demande motivée et conformément aux règles détaillées du droit national visées au paragraphe 5. Toutefois, dans une situation d’urgence dûment justifiée, il est possible de commencer à utiliser ce système sans autorisation à condition que cette autorisation soit demandée sans retard injustifié, au plus tard dans les 24 heures. Si cette autorisation est rejetée, il est mis fin à l’utilisation avec effet immédiat, et toutes les données, ainsi que les résultats et sorties de cette utilisation, sont immédiatement mis au rebut et supprimés.

L’autorité judiciaire compétente ou une autorité administrative indépendante dont la décision est contraignante n’accorde l’autorisation que si elle estime, sur la base d’éléments objectifs ou d’indications claires qui lui sont présentés, que l’utilisation du système d’identification biométrique à distance en temps réel concerné est nécessaire et proportionnée à la réalisation de l’un des objectifs énumérés au paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, point h), tels qu’indiqués dans la demande et, en particulier, que cette utilisation reste limitée au strict nécessaire dans le temps et du point de vue de la portée géographique et personnelle. Lorsqu’elle statue sur la demande, cette autorité tient compte des éléments visés au paragraphe 2. Aucune décision produisant des effets juridiques défavorables à l’égard d’une personne ne peut être prise sur la seule base de la sortie du système d’identification biométrique à distance «en temps réel».
Article 5 4.
Sans préjudice du paragraphe 3, toute utilisation d’un système d’identification biométrique à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public à des fins répressives est notifiée à l’autorité de surveillance du marché concernée et à l’autorité nationale chargée de la protection des données, conformément aux règles nationales visées au paragraphe 5. Cette notification contient, au minimum, les informations visées au paragraphe 6 et n’inclut pas de données opérationnelles sensibles.
Article 5 5.
Un État membre peut décider de prévoir la possibilité d’autoriser totalement ou partiellement l’utilisation de systèmes d’identification biométriques à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public à des fins répressives, dans les limites et les conditions énumérées au paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, point h), et aux paragraphes 2 et 3. Les États membres concernés établissent dans leur droit national les règles détaillées nécessaires à la demande, à la délivrance et à l’exercice des autorisations visées au paragraphe 3, ainsi qu’à la surveillance et à l’établissement de rapports y afférents. Ces règles précisent également pour quels objectifs énumérés au paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, point h), et notamment pour quelles infractions pénales visées au point h), iii), les autorités compétentes peuvent être autorisées à utiliser ces systèmes à des fins répressives. Les États membres notifient ces règles à la Commission au plus tard 30 jours après leur adoption. Les États membres peuvent adopter, conformément au droit de l’Union, des lois plus restrictives sur l’utilisation de systèmes d’identification biométrique à distance.
Article 5 6.
Les autorités nationales de surveillance du marché et les autorités nationales chargées de la protection des données des États membres qui ont été notifiées de l’utilisation de systèmes d’identification biométriques à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public à des fins répressives, conformément au paragraphe 4, soumettent à la Commission des rapports annuels sur cette utilisation. À cette fin, la Commission fournit aux États membres et aux autorités nationales en matière de surveillance du marché et de protection des données un modèle comprenant des informations sur le nombre de décisions prises par les autorités judiciaires compétentes ou par une autorité administrative indépendante dont la décision est contraignante en ce qui concerne les demandes d’autorisation conformément au paragraphe 3, ainsi que sur leur résultat.
Article 5 7.
La Commission publie des rapports annuels sur l’utilisation de systèmes d’identification biométriques à distance en temps réel dans des espaces accessibles au public à des fins répressives, fondés sur des données agrégées dans les États membres sur la base des rapports annuels visés au paragraphe 6. Ces rapports annuels n’incluent pas de données opérationnelles sensibles sur les activités répressives connexes.
Article 5 8.
Le présent article ne porte pas atteinte aux interdictions qui s’appliquent lorsqu’une pratique en matière d’IA enfreint d’autres dispositions du droit de l’Union.

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Normes associées

2. Exigences identifiées

Exigences

3. Normes associées

Normes
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.