+5. pants Aizliegta MI prakse
---+5. pants 1.
---+Article 5 1a.
---+Article 5 1b.
---+5. pants 2.
---+5. pants 3.
---+5. pants 4.
---+5. pants 5.
---+5. pants 6.
---+5. pants 7.
---+5. pants 8.

5. pants Aizliegta MI prakse

-

1. Pārskats

,
5. pants 1.

Ir aizliegta šāda MI prakse:

a) 

tādas MI sistēmas laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā vai lietošana, kas izmanto cilvēka neapzinātus subliminālus paņēmienus vai tīši manipulatīvus vai maldinošus paņēmienus, kuru mērķis ir būtiski iespaidot personas vai personu grupas uzvedību vai kuriem ir tādas sekas, kas ievērojami pasliktina viņu spēju pieņemt informētu lēmumu, tādējādi liekot tām pieņemt lēmumu, ko tās citādi nebūtu pieņēmušas, tādā veidā, kas šai personai, citai personai vai personu grupai rada vai pamatoti ticami radīs būtisku kaitējumu;

b) 

tādas MI sistēmas laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā vai lietošana, kura izmanto kādu no kādas fiziskas personas vai konkrētas personu grupas neaizsargātības iezīmēm viņu vecuma, invaliditātes vai konkrētas sociālās vai ekonomiskās situācijas dēļ un kuras mērķis vai sekas ir minētās personas vai minētajai grupai piederīgas personas uzvedības būtiska iespaidošana tādā veidā, kas attiecīgajai personai vai citai personai rada vai ir saprātīgi iespējams, ka radīs būtisku kaitējumu;

▼M1

ba) 

tādas MI sistēmas laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā vai lietošana, kas ģenerē reālistiskus attēlus, videomateriālus, audiomateriālus vai līdzīgus materiālus vai manipulē ar šādiem materiāliem, kuros attēlotas identificējamas fiziskas personas intīmās ķermeņa daļas vai identificējama fiziska persona attēlota iesaistīta nepārprotami seksuālā darbībā bez šīs personas brīvi sniegtas, konkrētas, apzinātas, viennozīmīgas un nepārprotamas piekrišanas šādu materiālu ģenerēšanai vai manipulēšanai ar tiem;

bb) 

tādas MI sistēmas laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā vai lietošana, kas ģenerē materiālu vai manipulē ar to, vai darbību attēlojumu Direktīvas 2011/93/ES 2. panta c) un e) punkta nozīmē, izņemot gadījumus, kad saskaņā ar valsts tiesību aktiem ir piemērojama aizstāvība “bez tiesībām”;

▼B

c) 

MI sistēmu laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā vai lietošana nolūkā izvērtēt vai klasificēt fiziskas personas vai personu grupas noteiktā laikposmā, pamatojoties uz viņu sociālo uzvedību vai zināmām, izsecinātām vai prognozētām personas vai personības īpašībām, ja sociālais novērtējums ved pie viena vai abiem šādiem iznākumiem:

i) 

kaitējoša vai nelabvēlīga attieksme pret dažām fiziskām personām vai personu grupām sociālos kontekstos, kas nav saistīti ar kontekstiem, kuros dati tika sākotnēji ģenerēti vai savākti;

ii) 

kaitējoša vai nelabvēlīga attieksme pret dažām fiziskām personām vai personu grupām, kas nav pamatota vai nav samērīga ar viņu sociālo uzvedību vai tās smagumu;

d) 

MI sistēmas laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā šim konkrētajam mērķim vai lietošana fizisku personu radītā riska novērtējuma veikšanai, lai novērtētu vai prognozētu risku, ka fiziska persona varētu izdarīt noziedzīgu nodarījumu, kura balstās vienīgi uz fiziskas personas profilēšanu vai uz tās personisko īpašību un rakstura iezīmju novērtēšanu; šo aizliegumu nepiemēro MI sistēmām, kuras izmanto, lai atbalstītu cilvēka veiktu novērtējumu par personas iesaistīšanos noziedzīgā darbībā, kurš jau ir balstīts uz objektīviem un pārbaudāmiem faktiem, kas ir tieši saistīti ar noziedzīgu darbību;

e) 

tādu MI sistēmu laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā šim konkrētajam mērķim vai lietošana, kuras izveido vai paplašina sejas atpazīšanas datubāzes, nemērķorientēti rasmojot sejas attēlus no interneta vai videonovērošanas sistēmu video;

f) 

MI sistēmu laišana tirgū, nodošana ekspluatācijā šim konkrētajam mērķim vai lietošana fiziskas personas emociju izsecināšanai darbavietā vai izglītības iestādēs, izņemot tad, ja MI sistēmas izmantošanu paredzēts ieviest vai laist tirgū medicīnisku vai drošības iemeslu dēļ;

g) 

tādu biometriskās kategorizācijas sistēmu laišana tirgū vai nodošana ekspluatācijā, vai lietošana, kuras individuāli kategorizē fiziskas personas, pamatojoties uz viņu biometriskajiem datiem, lai atvedinātu vai izsecinātu viņu rasi, politiskos uzskatus, dalību arodbiedrībās, reliģiskos vai filozofiskos uzskatus, dzimumdzīvi vai seksuālo orientāciju; šis aizliegums neattiecas uz likumīgi iegūtu biometrisko datu kopu, piemēram, attēlu, marķēšanu vai filtrēšanu, pamatojoties uz biometriskajiem datiem, vai biometrisko datu kategorizēšanu tiesībaizsardzības jomā;

h) 

reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmu izmantošana publiski piekļūstamās vietās tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos, izņemot tad, ja – un tiktāl, cik – tāda izmantošana ir absolūti nepieciešama kādam no šiem mērķiem:

i) 

konkrētu nolaupīšanas, cilvēku tirdzniecības vai cilvēku seksuālas izmantošanas upuru mērķtiecīga meklēšana, kā arī bezvēsts pazudušu personu meklēšana;

ii) 

konkrēta, būtiska un nenovēršama apdraudējuma fizisku personu dzīvībai vai fiziskai drošībai vai reālu un pašreizēju vai reālu un paredzamu teroristu uzbrukuma draudu novēršana;

iii) 

par noziedzīga nodarījuma izdarīšanu aizdomās turētas personas atrašanās vietas noteikšana vai personas identificēšana nolūkā veikt kriminālizmeklēšanu vai kriminālvajāšanu vai kriminālsoda izpildi par II pielikumā minētajiem nodarījumiem, par kuriem attiecīgajā dalībvalstī var piemērot brīvības atņemšanas sodu vai ar brīvības atņemšanu saistītu drošības līdzekli, kura maksimālais ilgums ir vismaz četri gadi.

Pirmās daļas h) punkts neskar Regulas (ES) 2016/679 9. pantu attiecībā uz biometrisko datu apstrādi nolūkos, kas nav tiesībaizsardzība.
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.
5. pants 2.

Reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmu lietošanu publiski piekļūstamās vietās tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos ar kādu no 1. punkta pirmās daļas h) apakšpunktā minētajiem mērķiem ievieš minētajā punktā noteiktajos nolūkos, lai apstiprinātu konkrētas personas identitāti, un tajā ņem vērā šādus elementus:

a) 

tās situācijas raksturs, kuras dēļ var notikt tāda lietošana, jo īpaši tā kaitējuma smagums, iespējamība un apmērs, kas tiktu radīts, ja sistēma netiktu lietota;

b) 

sistēmas lietošanas sekas attiecībā uz visu attiecīgo personu tiesībām un brīvībām, jo īpaši minēto seku smagums, iespējamība un apmērs.

Turklāt reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmu lietošana publiski piekļūstamās vietās tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos šā panta 1. punkta pirmās daļas h) apakšpunktā minētajiem mērķiem atbilst nepieciešamiem un samērīgiem aizsardzības pasākumiem un nosacījumiem attiecībā uz lietošanu saskaņā ar valsts tiesību aktiem, kuri atļauj to lietošanu, jo īpaši laika, ģeogrāfisku un personisku ierobežojumu ziņā. Reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmu lietošanu publiski piekļūstamās vietās atļauj vienīgi tad, ja tiesībaizsardzības iestāde ir pabeigusi 27. pantā paredzēto novērtējumu par ietekmi uz pamattiesībām un ir reģistrējusi sistēmu ES datubāzē saskaņā ar 49. pantu. Tomēr pienācīgi pamatotos steidzamos gadījumos šādu sistēmu lietošanu var sākt bez reģistrācijas ES datubāzē ar noteikumu, ka šāda reģistrācija tiek pabeigta bez liekas kavēšanās.
5. pants 3.
Šā panta 1. punkta pirmās daļas h) apakšpunkta un 2. punkta nolūkos katrai reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmas lietošanai tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos publiski piekļūstamās vietās ir nepieciešama iepriekšēja atļauja, ko izsniegusi tiesu iestāde vai neatkarīga administratīva iestāde, kuras lēmums ir saistošs, tajā dalībvalstī, kurā šo sistēmu paredzēts lietot, un kas izsniegta pēc pamatota pieprasījuma un saskaņā ar sīki izstrādātiem valsts tiesību aktu noteikumiem, kas minēti 5. punktā. Tomēr pienācīgi pamatotā steidzamā gadījumā šādas sistēmas lietošanu var sākt bez atļaujas ar noteikumu, ka šādu atļauju pieprasa bez liekas kavēšanās ne vēlāk kā 24 stundu laikā. Ja šāda atļauja netiek piešķirta, lietošanu nekavējoties pārtrauc un visus datus, kā arī tādas lietošanas rezultātus un iznākumus nekavējoties atmet un dzēš.

Kompetentā tiesu iestāde vai neatkarīga administratīvā iestāde, kuras lēmums ir saistošs, piešķir atļauju tikai tad, ja, pamatojoties uz tai iesniegtiem objektīviem pierādījumiem vai skaidrām norādēm, tā atzīst, ka attiecīgās reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmas lietošana ir nepieciešama un samērīga, lai sasniegtu vienu no 1. punkta pirmās daļas h) apakšpunktā noteiktajiem mērķiem, kas norādīts pieprasījumā, un jo īpaši tā notiek tikai tiktāl, cik tas absolūti nepieciešams laikposma, kā arī ģeogrāfiskā un personiskā tvēruma ziņā. Lemjot par pieprasījumu, minētā iestāde ņem vērā 2. punktā minētos elementus. Nevienu lēmumu, kas personai rada nelabvēlīgas tiesiskas sekas, nevar pieņemt, balstoties vienīgi uz reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmu sniegto iznākumu.
5. pants 4.
Neskarot 3. punktu, par katru reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmas lietošanu publiski piekļūstamās vietās tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos paziņo attiecīgajai tirgus uzraudzības iestādei un valsts datu aizsardzības iestādei saskaņā ar 5. punktā minētajiem valsts tiesību aktu noteikumiem. Paziņojumā iekļauj vismaz 6. punktā norādīto informāciju, un tajā neiekļauj sensitīvus operatīvos datus.
5. pants 5.
Dalībvalsts var nolemt paredzēt iespēju pilnīgi vai daļēji atļaut reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmu izmantošanu publiski piekļūstamās vietās tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos, ievērojot ierobežojumus un nosacījumus, kas uzskaitīti 1. punkta pirmās daļas h) apakšpunktā un 2. un 3. punktā. Attiecīgās dalībvalstis savos tiesību aktos nosaka vajadzīgos sīki izstrādātos noteikumus par 3. punktā minēto atļauju pieprasīšanu, izsniegšanu un izmantošanu, kā arī ar tām saistīto attiecīgo uzraudzību un ziņošanu. Minētajos noteikumos arī norāda, attiecībā uz kuriem no 1. punkta pirmās daļas h) apakšpunktā uzskaitītajiem mērķiem – tostarp kuru minētā punkta h) apakšpunkta iii) punktā norādīto noziedzīgo nodarījumu gadījumā – kompetentajām iestādēm var atļaut minētās sistēmas lietot tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos. Dalībvalstis minētos noteikumus paziņo Komisijai ne vēlāk kā 30 dienas pēc to pieņemšanas. Dalībvalstis saskaņā ar Savienības tiesību aktiem var ieviest ierobežojošākus tiesību aktus par biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmu lietošanu.
5. pants 6.
Dalībvalstu valsts tirgus uzraudzības iestādes un valsts datu aizsardzības iestādes, kurām ir paziņots par reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmas lietošanu publiski piekļūstamās vietās tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos, ievērojot 4. punktu, iesniedz Komisijai gada ziņojumus par šādu lietošanu. Minētajā nolūkā Komisija nodrošina dalībvalstīm un valsts tirgus uzraudzības un datu aizsardzības iestādēm veidni, kurā ietver informāciju par to lēmumu skaitu, kurus attiecībā uz atļaujas pieprasījumiem saskaņā ar 3. punktu pieņēmušas kompetentās tiesu iestādes vai neatkarīga administratīvā iestāde, kuras lēmumi ir saistoši, un par to rezultātiem.
5. pants 7.
Komisija publicē gada ziņojumus par reāllaika biometriskās tālidentifikācijas sistēmas lietošanu publiski piekļūstamās vietās tiesībaizsardzības nolūkos, pamatojoties uz dalībvalstīs agregētiem datiem, kas balstīti uz 6. punktā minētajiem gada ziņojumiem. Minētie gada ziņojumi neietver sensitīvus operatīvos datus par saistītajām tiesībaizsardzības darbībām.
5. pants 8.
Šis pants neietekmē aizliegumus, ko piemēro, ja MI prakse pārkāpj citus Savienības tiesību aktus.

1.1 Atsauces

1.2 Identificētās prasības

1.3 Saistītie standarti

2. Identificētās prasības

Prasības

3. Saistītie standarti

Standarti
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.