+Artikel 7 Wijzigingen in bijlage III
---+Artikel 7 1.
---+Artikel 7 2.
---+Artikel 7 3.
|
Artikel 7 Wijzigingen in bijlage III
-
1. Overzicht
| Titel |
Regelgeving |
|
Artikel 7 1.
|
De Commissie is bevoegd overeenkomstig artikel 97 gedelegeerde handelingen vast te stellen tot wijziging van bijlage III door hieraan gebruiksgevallen van AI-systemen met een hoog risico toe te voegen of te wijzigen wanneer aan beide van de volgende voorwaarden is voldaan:
a)
de AI-systemen zijn bedoeld om te worden gebruikt op een van de gebieden als bedoeld in bijlage III;
b)
de AI-systemen vormen een risico op schade voor de gezondheid en veiligheid, of nadelige effecten op de grondrechten, en dat risico is gelijk aan of groter dan het risico op schade of nadelige effecten dat wordt gevormd door de AI-systemen met een hoog risico die reeds zijn opgenomen in bijlage III.
|
|
Artikel 7 2.
|
Bij de beoordeling van de voorwaarde van lid 1, punt b), houdt de Commissie rekening met de volgende criteria:
a)
het beoogde doel van het AI-systeem;
b)
de mate waarin een AI-systeem is gebruikt of waarschijnlijk zal worden gebruikt;
c)
de aard van en de hoeveelheid gegevens die het AI-systeem verwerkt en gebruikt, met name of bijzondere categorieën persoonsgegevens worden verwerkt;
d)
de mate waarin het AI-systeem autonoom handelt en de mogelijkheid voor een mens om beslissingen of aanbevelingen die tot schade kunnen leiden terzijde te schuiven;
e)
de mate waarin het gebruik van een AI-systeem reeds schade voor de gezondheid en veiligheid of nadelige effecten op de grondrechten heeft veroorzaakt of aanleiding heeft gegeven tot aanzienlijke zorgen in verband met de waarschijnlijkheid van dergelijke schade of nadelige effecten, zoals aangetoond bijvoorbeeld door verslagen of gedocumenteerde beweringen die zijn ingediend bij de nationale bevoegde autoriteiten of, in voorkomend geval, door andere verslagen;
f)
de potentiële omvang van dergelijke schade of dergelijke nadelige effecten, met name wat betreft de intensiteit ervan en de mogelijkheid dat meerdere personen worden getroffen of dat een bepaalde groep personen onevenredig wordt getroffen;
g)
de mate waarin potentieel geschade of nadelig getroffen personen afhankelijk zijn van de aan de hand van een AI-systeem geproduceerde uitkomst, met name omdat het om praktische of juridische redenen niet redelijkerwijs mogelijk is om van deze uitkomst af te zien;
h)
de mate waarin sprake is van een onevenwichtige machtsverhouding, of de potentieel geschade of nadelig getroffen personen zich in een kwetsbare positie bevinden ten opzichte van de gebruiksverantwoordelijke van een AI-systeem, met name als gevolg van status, autoriteit, kennis, economische of sociale omstandigheden of leeftijd;
i)
de mate waarin de geproduceerde uitkomst waarbij een AI-systeem betrokken is niet gemakkelijk kan worden rechtgezet of omgekeerd, rekening houdend met de beschikbare technische oplossingen om die uitkomst recht te zetten of om te keren, waarbij van uitkomsten die nadelige effecten hebben op de gezondheid, veiligheid of grondrechten, niet wordt beschouwd dat zij eenvoudig kunnen worden rechtgezet of omgekeerd;
j)
de omvang en waarschijnlijkheid van het voordeel dat het inzetten van het AI-systeem voor natuurlijke personen, groepen of de samenleving in het algemeen, met inbegrip van mogelijke verbeteringen op het gebied van productveiligheid, met zich meebrengt;
k)
de mate waarin in het bestaande Unierecht is voorzien in:
i)
doeltreffende maatregelen om beroep aan te tekenen in verband met de risico’s van een AI-systeem, met uitzondering van vorderingen tot schadevergoeding;
ii)
doeltreffende maatregelen om deze risico’s te voorkomen of aanzienlijk te beperken.
|
|
Artikel 7 3.
|
De Commissie is bevoegd overeenkomstig artikel 97 gedelegeerde handelingen vast te stellen tot wijziging van bijlage III door AI-systemen met een hoog risico te schrappen wanneer aan beide van de volgende voorwaarden is voldaan:
a)
het betrokken AI-systeem met een hoog risico vormt, rekening houdend met de in lid 2 vermelde criteria, geen significant risico voor de grondrechten, de gezondheid of de veiligheid;
b)
de schrapping leidt niet tot een lager algeheel beschermingsniveau wat betreft de gezondheid, de veiligheid en de grondrechten uit hoofde van het Unierecht.
|
,
1.1 Referenties
1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen
1.3 Gerelateerde standaarden
2. Geïdentificeerde eisen
3. Gerelateerde standaarden
Standaarden
| Bron |
Eis |
|
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.
|
|