+Artikolu 7 Emendi għall-Anness III
---+Artikolu 7 1.
---+Artikolu 7 2.
---+Artikolu 7 3.
|
Artikolu 7 Emendi għall-Anness III
-
1. Ħarsa ġenerali
| Titlu |
Regolamentazzjoni |
|
Artikolu 7 1.
|
Il-Kummissjoni għandha s-setgħa li tadotta atti delegati f'konformità mal-Artikolu 97 biex temenda l-Anness III billi żżid jew timmodifika każijiet ta' użu ta' sistemi tal-IA b'riskju għoli meta ż-żewġ kundizzjonijiet li ġejjin huma ssodisfati:
(a)
is-sistemi tal-IA jkunu maħsuba biex jintużaw f'xi waħda miż-żoni elenkati fl-Anness III;
(b)
is-sistemi tal-IA joħolqu riskju ta' ħsara għas-saħħa u s-sikurezza, jew ta' impatt negattiv fuq id-drittijiet fundamentali, u dak ir-riskju huwa ekwivalenti jew akbar mir-riskju ta' ħsara jew ta' impatt negattiv maħluq mis-sistemi tal-IA b'riskju għoli diġà msemmija fl-Anness III.
|
|
Artikolu 7 2.
|
Meta tivvaluta l-kundizzjoni skont il-paragrafu 1, il-punt (b), il-Kummissjoni għandha tqis il-kriterji li ġejjin:
(a)
l-għan maħsub tas-sistema tal-IA;
(b)
il-punt sa fejn intużat jew aktarx tintuża sistema tal-IA;
(c)
in-natura u l-ammont tad-data pproċessata u użata mis-sistema tal-IA, b'mod partikolari jekk jiġux ipproċessati kategoriji speċjali ta' data personali;
(d)
il-punt sa fejn is-sistema tal-IA taġixxi b'mod awtonomu u l-possibbiltà li bniedem jegħleb deċiżjoni jew rakkomandazzjonijiet li jistgħu jwasslu għal ħsara potenzjali;
(e)
il-punt sa fejn l-użu ta' sistema tal-IA diġà kkawża ħsara għas-saħħa u s-sikurezza, kellu impatt negattiv fuq id-drittijiet fundamentali jew wassal għal tħassib sinifikanti fir-rigward tal-materjalizzazzjoni ta' din il-ħsara jew l-impatt negattiv, kif muri, pereżempju, minn rapporti jew allegazzjonijiet dokumentati ppreżentati lill-awtoritajiet nazzjonali kompetenti jew minn rapporti oħra, skont il-każ;
(f)
il-firxa potenzjali ta' din il-ħsara jew ta' dan l-impatt negattiv, b'mod partikolari f'termini tal-intensità tiegħu u l-kapaċità tiegħu li jaffettwa diversi persuni jew li jaffettwa b'mod sproporzjonat grupp partikolari ta' persuni;
(g)
il-punt sa fejn il-persuni li potenzjalment issirilhom ħsara jew isofru impatt negattiv ikunu dipendenti fuq l-eżitu prodott b'sistema tal-IA, b'mod partikolari meta għal raġunijiet prattiċi jew legali ma jkunx raġonevolment possibbli li persuna tagħżel li teskludi lilha nnifisha minn dak l-eżitu;
(h)
il-punt sa fejn jeżisti żbilanċ ta' poter, jew il-persuni li potenzjalment issirilhom ħsara jew isofru impatt negattiv ikunu f'pożizzjoni vulnerabbli fir-rigward tal-implimentatur ta' sistema tal-IA, b'mod partikolari minħabba status, awtorità, għarfien, ċirkostanzi ekonomiċi jew soċjali, jew età;
(i)
il-punt sa fejn l-eżitu prodott bl-involviment ta' sistema tal-IA jista' faċilment jiġi kkoreġut jew imreġġa' lura, b'kunsiderazzjoni għas-soluzzjonijiet tekniċi disponibbli biex jiġi kkoreġut jew mreġġa' lura, fejn l-eżiti li jkollhom impatt negattiv fuq is-saħħa, is-sikurezza jew id-drittijiet fundamentali, ma għandhomx jitqiesu bħala li jistgħu jiġu kkoreġuti jew mreġġgħin lura faċilment;
(j)
il-kobor u l-probabbiltà tal-benefiċċju mill-implimentazzjoni tas-sistema tal-IA għal individwi, gruppi jew għas-soċjetà inġenerali, inkluż titjib possibbli fis-sikurezza tal-prodott;
(k)
il-punt sa fejn il-liġi eżistenti tal-Unjoni tipprevedi:
(i)
miżuri effettivi ta' rimedju fir-rigward tar-riskji maħluqa minn sistema tal-IA, bl-esklużjoni ta' pretensjonijiet għal danni;
(ii)
miżuri effettivi għall-prevenzjoni jew il-minimizzazzjoni sostanzjali ta' dawk ir-riskji.
|
|
Artikolu 7 3.
|
Il-Kummissjoni għandha s-setgħa li tadotta atti delegati f'konformità mal-Artikolu 97 biex temenda l-lista fl-Anness III billi tneħħi sistemi tal-IA b'riskju għoli meta ż-żewġ kundizzjonijiet li ġejjin huma ssodisfati:
(a)
is-sistema tal-IA b'riskju għoli kkonċernata ma tibqax toħloq riskji sinifikanti għad-drittijiet fundamentali, għas-saħħa jew għas-sikurezza, b'kunsiderazzjoni għall-kriterji elenkati fil-paragrafu 2;
(b)
it-tħassir ma jnaqqasx il-livell ġenerali ta' protezzjoni tas-saħħa, tas-sikurezza u tad-drittijiet fundamentali skont il-liġi tal-Unjoni.
|
,
1.1 Referenzi
1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati
1.3 Standards relatati
2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Standards relatati
Standards
| Sors |
Rekwiżit |
|
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.
|
|