+Airteagal 52 Nós imeachta
---+Airteagal 52 1.
---+Airteagal 52 2.
---+Airteagal 52 3.
---+Airteagal 52 4.
---+Airteagal 52 5.
---+Airteagal 52 6.
|
Airteagal 52 Nós imeachta
-
1. Forbhreathnú
| Teideal |
Rialáil |
|
Airteagal 52 1.
|
I gcás ina gcomhlíonfaidh samhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach an coinníoll dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 51(1), pointe (a), tabharfaidh an soláthraí ábhartha fógra don Choimisiún gan mhoill agus in aon chás laistigh de dhá sheachtain tar éis an ceanglas sin a bheith comhlíonta nó tar éis dó a bheith curtha ar an eolas go gcomhlíonfar é. Áireofar san fhógra sin an fhaisnéis is gá chun a léiriú gur comhlíonadh an ceanglas ábhartha. Má fhaigheann an Coimisiún amach faoi shamhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach lena mbaineann rioscaí sistéamacha nár tugadh fógra dó ina leith, féadfaidh sé a chinneadh í a ainmniú mar shamhail lena mbaineann riosca sistéamach.
|
|
Airteagal 52 2.
|
Féadfaidh soláthraí samhla intleachta saorga ilchuspóirí a chomhlíonann an coinníoll dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 51(1), pointe (a), argóintí a bhfuil bunús leordhóthanach leo a chur i láthair, in éineacht lena fhógra, chun a léiriú, go heisceachtúil, cé go gcomhlíonann sé an ceanglas sin, nach mbaineann rioscaí sistéamacha leis an tsamhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach, mar gheall ar a saintréithe sonracha, agus nár cheart, dá bhrí sin, í a aicmiú mar shamhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach lena mbaineann riosca sistéamach.
|
|
Airteagal 52 3.
|
I gcás ina gcinnfidh an Coimisiún nach bhfuil bunús leordhóthanach leis na hargóintí a cuireadh isteach de bhun mhír 2 agus nach raibh an soláthraí ábhartha in ann a thaispeáint nach bhfuil an tsamhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach ag léiriú, mar gheall ar a saintréithe sonracha, a rioscaí sistéamacha, diúltóidh sé do na hargóintí sin, agus measfar gur samhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach lena mbaineann riosca sistéamach í an tsamhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach.
|
|
Airteagal 52 4.
|
Féadfaidh an Coimisiún samhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach a ainmniú mar shamhail lena mbaineann rioscaí sistéamacha, ex officio nó tar éis foláireamh cáilithe ón bpainéal eolaíoch de bhun Airteagal 90(1), pointe (a), ar bhonn na gcritéar a leagtar amach in Iarscríbhinn XIII. Tugtar de chumhacht don Choimisiún gníomhartha tarmligthe a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 97 chun leasú a dhéanamh ar Iarscríbhinn XIII trí na critéir a leagtar amach san Iarscríbhinn sin a shonrú agus a thabhairt cothrom le dáta.
|
|
Airteagal 52 5.
|
Ar iarraidh réasúnaithe a fháil ó sholáthraí ar ainmníodh a shamhail mar shamhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach lena mbaineann riosca sistéamach de bhun mhír 4, cuirfidh an Coimisiún an iarraidh san áireamh agus féadfaidh sé a chinneadh athmheasúnú a dhéanamh ar cibé acu is féidir nó nach féidir a mheas fós go mbaineann rioscaí sistéamacha leis an tsamhail intleachta saorga ilchuspóireach ar bhonn na gcritéar a leagtar amach in Iarscríbhinn XIII. Beidh san iarraidh sin cúiseanna oibiachtúla, mionsonraithe agus nua a tháinig chun cinn ó rinneadh an cinneadh ainmniúcháin. Féadfaidh soláthraithe athmheasúnú a iarraidh 6 mhí ar a luaithe tar éis an chinnidh ainmniúcháin. I gcás ina gcinnfidh an Coimisiún, tar éis dó athmheasúnú a dhéanamh, an t-ainmniú mar shamhail ilchuspóireach intleachta saorga lena mbaineann riosca sistéamach a choinneáil, féadfaidh soláthraithe athmheasúnú a iarraidh sé mhí ar a luaithe tar éis an chinnidh sin.
|
|
Airteagal 52 6.
|
Áiritheoidh an Coimisiún go bhfoilseofar liosta de shamhlacha intleachta saorga ilchuspóireacha lena mbaineann riosca sistéamach agus coimeádfaidh sé an liosta sin cothrom le dáta, gan dochar don ghá cearta maoine intleachtúla agus faisnéis rúnda ghnó nó rúin trádála a urramú agus a chosaint i gcomhréir le dlí an Aontais agus leis an dlí náisiúnta.
|
,
1.1 Tagairtí
1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta
1.3 Caighdeáin ghaolmhara
2. Ceanglais aitheanta
Ceanglais
| Foinse |
Ceanglas |
3. Caighdeáin ghaolmhara
Caighdeáin
| Foinse |
Ceanglas |
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Registration
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain a current registration for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Determine whether any AI use requires registration (e.g., EU AI Act high-risk systems)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Track AI registration obligations by jurisdiction in compliance checklist
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Register high-risk AI systems with relevant authorities as required
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI registration compliance program
∙ Track registration requirements by jurisdiction
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance platform
∙ Automated registration tracking
∙ EU AI Act database registration 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
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.
▪ 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
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 maintain a current registration for AAT with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
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
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Registration
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain a current registration for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Determine whether any AI use requires registration (e.g., EU AI Act high-risk systems)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Track AI registration obligations by jurisdiction in compliance checklist
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Register high-risk AI systems with relevant authorities as required
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI registration compliance program
∙ Track registration requirements by jurisdiction
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance platform
∙ Automated registration tracking
∙ EU AI Act database registration 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
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.
▪ 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
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 maintain a current registration for AAT with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
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.
|
|