+7. pants Grozījumi III pielikumā
---+7. pants 1.
---+7. pants 2.
---+7. pants 3.
|
7. pants Grozījumi III pielikumā
-
1. Pārskats
| Nosaukums |
Regulējums |
|
7. pants 1.
|
Komisija tiek pilnvarota pieņemt deleģētos aktus saskaņā ar 97. pantu, lai grozītu III pielikumu, pievienojot vai mainot augsta riska MI sistēmu lietošanas gadījumus, ja ir izpildīti abi šie nosacījumi:
a)
MI sistēmas ir paredzētas lietošanai jebkurā no III pielikumā uzskaitītajām jomām;
b)
MI sistēmas rada kaitējuma risku veselībai un drošībai vai nelabvēlīgu ietekmi uz pamattiesībām, un minētais risks ir līdzvērtīgs ar vai lielāks par kaitējuma vai nelabvēlīgas ietekmes risku, ko rada augsta riska MI sistēmas, kuras jau minētas III pielikumā.
|
|
7. pants 2.
|
Novērtējot 1. punkta b) apakšpunktā paredzēto nosacījumu, Komisija ņem vērā šādus kritērijus:
a)
MI sistēmas paredzētais nolūks;
b)
kādā mērā MI sistēma ir lietota vai ir domājams, ka tiks lietota;
c)
MI sistēmas apstrādāto un izmantoto datu raksturs un apjoms, jo īpaši tas, vai tiek apstrādāti īpašu kategoriju personas dati;
d)
kādā mērā MI sistēma darbojas autonomi, un kāda ir iespēja cilvēkam neņemt vērā lēmumu vai ieteikumus, kuri var radīt potenciālu kaitējumu;
e)
kādā mērā MI sistēmas lietošana jau ir nodarījusi kaitējumu veselībai un drošībai, tai ir bijusi nelabvēlīga ietekme uz pamattiesībām, vai tā ir raisījusi nopietnas bažas par šāda kaitējuma vai nelabvēlīgas ietekmes iespējamību, kā liecina, piemēram, ziņojumi vai dokumentēti apgalvojumi, kas iesniegti valsts kompetentajām iestādēm, vai, attiecīgā gadījumā, citi ziņojumi;
f)
šāda kaitējuma vai šādas nelabvēlīgas ietekmes iespējamais apmērs, jo īpaši attiecībā uz to intensitāti un spēju skart daudzus cilvēkus vai nesamērīgi ietekmēt kādu konkrētu personu grupu;
g)
kādā mērā personas, kam potenciāli ir nodarīts kaitējums vai kuras cieš no nelabvēlīgas ietekmes, ir atkarīgas no MI sistēmas radītā iznākuma, jo īpaši tāpēc, ka praktisku vai juridisku iemeslu dēļ nav saprātīgi iespējams atteikties no tāda iznākuma;
h)
kādā mērā spēku samērs nav līdzvērtīgs vai personas, kam potenciāli ir nodarīts kaitējums vai kuras cieš no nelabvēlīgas ietekmes, ir neaizsargātā stāvoklī attiecībā pret MI sistēmas uzturētāju, jo īpaši statusa, pilnvaru, zināšanu, ekonomisko vai sociālo apstākļu vai vecuma dēļ;
i)
kādā mērā iznākums, kas radīts, iesaistot MI sistēmu, ir viegli izlabojams vai reversējams, ņemot vērā tehniskos risinājumus, kas pieejami labošanai vai reversēšanai; iznākumus, kam ir nelabvēlīga ietekme uz veselību, drošību vai pamattiesībām, neuzskata par viegli izlabojamiem vai reversējamiem;
j)
vai un kādā mērā MI sistēmas ieviešana dotu ieguvumu indivīdiem, grupām vai sabiedrībai kopumā, ieskaitot iespējamos produktu drošības uzlabojumus;
k)
kādā mērā spēkā esošie Savienības tiesību akti nosaka:
i)
efektīvus tiesību aizsardzības pasākumus saistībā ar MI sistēmas radītajiem riskiem, izņemot prasības par kaitējuma atlīdzināšanu;
ii)
efektīvus pasākumus minēto risku novēršanai vai būtiskai samazināšanai.
|
|
7. pants 3.
|
Komisija tiek pilnvarota pieņemt deleģētos aktus saskaņā ar 97. pantu, lai grozītu III pielikumā ietverto sarakstu, svītrojot augsta riska MI sistēmas, ja ir izpildīti abi šie nosacījumi:
a)
attiecīgā augsta riska MI sistēma vairs nerada būtiskus riskus pamattiesībām, veselībai vai drošībai, ņemot vērā 2. punktā uzskaitītos kritērijus;
b)
svītrošana nesamazina vispārējo veselības, drošības un pamattiesību aizsardzības līmeni, kas paredzēts Savienības tiesību aktos.
|
,
1.1 Atsauces
1.2 Identificētās prasības
1.3 Saistītie standarti
2. Identificētās prasības
3. Saistītie standarti
Standarti
| Avots |
Prasība |
|
SCF
|
High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization
Description
Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Asset Management (AST) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization
Description
Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Asset Management (AST) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).
Level 3 Well Defined
Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|