+Artykuł 5 Zakazane praktyki w zakresie AI
---+Artykuł 5 1.
---+Artykuł 5 1a.
---+Artykuł 5 1b.
---+Artykuł 5 2.
---+Artykuł 5 3.
---+Artykuł 5 4.
---+Artykuł 5 5.
---+Artykuł 5 6.
---+Artykuł 5 7.
---+Artykuł 5 8.

Artykuł 5 Zakazane praktyki w zakresie AI

-

1. Przegląd

,
Artykuł 5 1.

Zakazuje się następujących praktyk w zakresie AI:

a) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku lub wykorzystywania systemu AI, który stosuje techniki podprogowe będące poza świadomością danej osoby lub celowe techniki manipulacyjne lub wprowadzające w błąd, czego celem lub skutkiem jest dokonanie znaczącej zmiany zachowania danej osoby lub grupy osób poprzez znaczące ograniczenie ich zdolności do podejmowania świadomych decyzji, powodując tym samym podjęcie przez nie decyzji, której inaczej by nie podjęły, w sposób, który wyrządza lub może wyrządzić u niej, u innej osoby lub u grupy osób poważną szkodę;

b) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku lub wykorzystywania systemu AI, który wykorzystuje słabości osoby fizycznej lub określonej grupy osób ze względu na ich wiek, niepełnosprawność lub szczególną sytuację społeczną lub ekonomiczną, którego celem lub skutkiem jest dokonanie znaczącej zmiany zachowania danej osoby lub osoby należącej do tej grupy w sposób, który wyrządza lub może z uzasadnionym prawdopodobieństwem wyrządzić u tej osoby lub u innej osoby poważną szkodę;

▼M1

ba) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku lub wykorzystywania systemu AI, który generuje realistyczne obrazy, materiały wideo, materiały dźwiękowe lub podobne materiały przedstawiające intymne części ciała możliwej do zidentyfikowania osoby fizycznej lub możliwą do zidentyfikowania osobę fizyczną podczas czynności o charakterze jednoznacznie seksualnym, lub manipuluje takimi obrazami czy materiałami, bez jej dobrowolnej, konkretnej, świadomej, jednoznacznej i wyraźnej zgody na takie generowanie lub manipulowanie;

bb) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku lub wykorzystywania systemu AI, który generuje materiały lub przedstawienia w rozumieniu art. 2 lit. c) i e) dyrektywy 2011/93/UE oraz manipuluje nimi, z wyjątkiem sytuacji, w których na mocy prawa krajowego ma zastosowanie okoliczność wyłączająca bezprawność;

▼B

c) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku lub wykorzystywania systemów AI na potrzeby oceny lub klasyfikacji osób fizycznych lub grup osób prowadzonej przez określony czas na podstawie ich zachowania społecznego lub znanych, wywnioskowanych lub przewidywanych cech osobistych lub cech osobowości, kiedy to scoring społeczny prowadzi do jednego lub obu z następujących skutków:

(i) 

krzywdzącego lub niekorzystnego traktowania niektórych osób fizycznych lub grup osób w kontekstach społecznych, które nie są związane z kontekstami, w których pierwotnie wygenerowano lub zebrano dane;

(ii) 

krzywdzącego lub niekorzystnego traktowania niektórych osób fizycznych lub grup osób, które jest nieuzasadnione lub nieproporcjonalne do ich zachowania społecznego lub jego wagi;

d) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku w tym konkretnym celu lub wykorzystywania systemu AI do przeprowadzania ocen ryzyka w odniesieniu do osób fizycznych, by ocenić lub przewidzieć ryzyko popełnienia przestępstwa przez osobę fizyczną, wyłącznie na podstawie profilowania osoby fizycznej lub oceny jej cech osobowości i cech charakterystycznych; zakaz ten nie ma zastosowania do systemów AI wykorzystywanych do wspierania dokonywanej przez człowieka oceny udziału danej osoby w działalności przestępczej, która to ocena opiera się już na obiektywnych i weryfikowalnych faktach bezpośrednio związanych z działalnością przestępczą;

e) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku w tym konkretnym celu lub wykorzystywania systemów AI, które tworzą lub rozbudowują bazy danych służące rozpoznawaniu twarzy poprzez nieukierunkowane pozyskiwanie (ang. untargeted scraping) wizerunków twarzy z internetu lub nagrań z telewizji przemysłowej;

f) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku w tym konkretnym celu lub wykorzystywania systemów AI do wyciągania wniosków na temat emocji osoby fizycznej w miejscu pracy lub instytucjach edukacyjnych, z wyjątkiem przypadków, w których system AI ma zostać wdrożony lub wprowadzony do obrotu ze względów medycznych lub bezpieczeństwa;

g) 

wprowadzania do obrotu, oddawania do użytku w tym konkretnym celu lub wykorzystywania systemów kategoryzacji biometrycznej, które indywidualnie kategoryzują osoby fizyczne w oparciu o ich dane biometryczne, by wydedukować lub wywnioskować informacje na temat ich rasy, poglądów politycznych, przynależności do związków zawodowych, przekonań religijnych lub światopoglądowych, seksualności lub orientacji seksualnej; zakaz ten nie obejmuje przypadków etykietowania ani filtrowania pozyskanych zgodnie z prawem zbiorów danych biometrycznych, takich jak obrazy, w oparciu o dane biometryczne, ani kategoryzacji danych biometrycznych w obszarze ścigania przestępstw;

h) 

wykorzystywania systemów zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw, chyba że – i w zakresie, w jakim – takie wykorzystanie jest bezwzględnie konieczne do jednego z następujących celów:

(i) 

ukierunkowanego poszukiwania konkretnych ofiar uprowadzeń, handlu ludźmi lub wykorzystywania seksualnego ludzi, a także poszukiwania osób zaginionych;

(ii) 

zapobiegnięcia konkretnemu, istotnemu i bezpośredniemu zagrożeniu życia lub bezpieczeństwa fizycznego osób fizycznych lub rzeczywistemu i aktualnemu lub rzeczywistemu i dającemu się przewidzieć zagrożeniu atakiem terrorystycznym;

(iii) 

lokalizowania lub identyfikowania osoby podejrzanej o popełnienie przestępstwa w celu prowadzenia postępowania przygotowawczego lub ścigania lub wykonania kar w odniesieniu do przestępstw, o których mowa w załączniku II, podlegających w danym państwie członkowskim karze pozbawienia wolności lub środkowi polegającemu na pozbawieniu wolności przez okres, którego górna granica wynosi co najmniej cztery lata.

Akapit pierwszy lit. h) pozostaje bez uszczerbku dla art. 9 rozporządzenia (UE) 2016/679 w odniesieniu do przetwarzania danych biometrycznych do celów innych niż ściganie przestępstw.
Artykuł 5 1a.

Do celów ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. ba) i bb):

a) 

wprowadzanie do obrotu lub oddawanie do użytku systemu AI, który generuje materiały lub przedstawienia, o których mowa w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. ba) lub bb), lub nimi manipuluje, jest zakazane wyłącznie w przypadku gdy:

(i) 

to generowanie lub manipulowanie jest zamierzonym celem systemu AI; lub

(ii) 

związane z systemem projektowanie, trenowanie, architektura, zdolności lub funkcje skierowane do użytkownika sprawiają, że to generowanie lub manipulowanie jest racjonalnie przewidywalnym i odtwarzalnym wynikiem, niewymagającym znaczących modyfikacji technicznych, a system nie posiada racjonalnych i odpowiednich technicznych środków bezpieczeństwa ani innych zabezpieczeń, które w sposób niezawodny zapobiegałyby takiemu generowaniu lub manipulowaniu, z uwzględnieniem racjonalnie przewidywalnego niewłaściwego wykorzystania, oraz które korygują zaobserwowane lub zgłoszone niewłaściwe wykorzystanie;

b) 

wykorzystywanie systemu AI, który generuje materiały lub przedstawienia, o których mowa w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. ba) i bb), lub manipuluje nimi, jest zabronione wyłącznie w przypadku, gdy podmiot stosujący wykorzystuje system do generowania takich materiałów lub przedstawień lub manipulowania nimi.
Artykuł 5 1b.
Do celów ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. ba) system AI manipulujący materiałem w sposób, który nie zwiększa ekspozycji przedstawionych intymnych części ciała ani nie zmienia charakteru przedstawionych czynności o wyraźnie seksualnym charakterze, nie stanowi manipulacji.
Artykuł 5 2.

Systemy zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw w odniesieniu do któregokolwiek z celów, o których mowa w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. h), mogą być wykorzystywane do celów określonych w tej literze, jedynie w celu potwierdzenia tożsamości konkretnej poszukiwanej osoby, z uwzględnieniem przy tym następujących elementów:

a) 

charakter sytuacji powodującej konieczność ewentualnego wykorzystania takiego systemu, w szczególności powagę, prawdopodobieństwo i skalę szkody, która zostałaby wyrządzona w przypadku niewykorzystania tego systemu;

b) 

konsekwencje wykorzystania takiego systemu dla praw i wolności wszystkich zainteresowanych osób, w szczególności powagę, prawdopodobieństwo i skalę tych konsekwencji.

Ponadto wykorzystywanie systemów zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw w odniesieniu do któregokolwiek z celów, o których mowa w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. h) niniejszego artykułu, musi przebiegać z zachowaniem niezbędnych i proporcjonalnych zabezpieczeń i warunków w odniesieniu do takiego wykorzystywania zgodnie z zezwalającym na takie wykorzystanie prawem krajowym, w szczególności w odniesieniu do ograniczeń czasowych, geograficznych i osobowych. Wykorzystanie systemów zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej jest dozwolone tylko wtedy, gdy organ ścigania przeprowadził ocenę skutków dla praw podstawowych zgodnie z art. 27 oraz zarejestrował system w bazie danych UE zgodnie z przepisami art. 49. W należycie uzasadnionych nadzwyczajnych przypadkach można jednak rozpocząć korzystanie z takich systemów bez rejestracji w bazie danych UE, pod warunkiem że taka rejestracja zostanie dokonana bez zbędnej zwłoki.
Artykuł 5 3.
Na potrzeby ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. h) i ust. 2, każde wykorzystanie systemu zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw wymaga uzyskania uprzedniego zezwolenia udzielonego przez organ wymiaru sprawiedliwości lub wydający wiążące decyzje niezależny organ administracyjny państwa członkowskiego, w którym ma nastąpić wykorzystanie; zezwolenie to wydawane jest na uzasadniony wniosek i zgodnie ze szczegółowymi przepisami prawa krajowego, o których mowa w ust. 5. W należycie uzasadnionych pilnych przypadkach korzystanie z takiego systemu można jednak rozpocząć bez zezwolenia, pod warunkiem że wniosek o takie zezwolenie zostanie złożony bez zbędnej zwłoki, najpóźniej w ciągu 24 godzin. W przypadku odmowy udzielenia takiego zezwolenia wykorzystywanie systemu wstrzymuje się ze skutkiem natychmiastowym, a wszystkie dane, a także rezultaty i wyniki uzyskane podczas tego wykorzystania musza zostać natychmiast odrzucone i usunięte.

Właściwy organ wymiaru sprawiedliwości lub wydający wiążące decyzje niezależny organ administracyjny udziela zezwolenia tylko wtedy, gdy jest przekonany, na podstawie obiektywnych dowodów lub jasnych przesłanek, które mu przedstawiono, że wykorzystanie danego systemu zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym jest konieczne i proporcjonalne do osiągnięcia jednego z celów określonych w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. h), wskazanego we wniosku, a w szczególności ogranicza się do tego, co jest bezwzględnie konieczne w odniesieniu do przedziału czasowego, a także zakresu geograficznego i podmiotowego. Podejmując decyzję w sprawie wniosku organ ten bierze pod uwagę elementy, o których mowa w ust. 2. Nie można wydać decyzji wywołującej niepożądane skutki prawne dla danej osoby wyłącznie na podstawie wyników uzyskanych z systemu zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym.
Artykuł 5 4.
Bez uszczerbku dla ust. 3, o każdym wykorzystaniu systemu zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw powiadamia się właściwy organ nadzoru rynku i krajowy organ ochrony danych zgodnie z przepisami prawa krajowego, o których mowa w ust. 5. Powiadomienie zawiera co najmniej informacje określone w ust. 6 i nie może zawierać wrażliwych danych operacyjnych.
Artykuł 5 5.
Państwo członkowskie może podjąć decyzję o wprowadzeniu możliwości pełnego lub częściowego zezwolenia na wykorzystywanie systemów zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw w granicach i na warunkach wymienionych w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. h) i w ust. 2 i 3. Zainteresowane państwa członkowskie ustanawiają w swoim prawie krajowym niezbędne szczegółowe przepisy dotyczące wniosku o udzielenie zezwoleń, o których mowa w ust. 3, wydawanie i wykonywanie tych zezwoleń oraz ich nadzorowanie składanie sprawozdań w ich sprawie. W przepisach tych określa się również, w odniesieniu do których celów wymienionych w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. h) – w tym w odniesieniu do których przestępstw wymienionych w ust. 1 akapit pierwszy lit. h) ppkt (iii) – właściwe organy mogą uzyskać zezwolenie na wykorzystanie tych systemów do celów celu ścigania przestępstw. Państwa członkowskie powiadamiają Komisję o tych przepisach najpóźniej 30 dni po ich przyjęciu. Państwa członkowskie mogą wprowadzić, zgodnie z prawem Unii, bardziej restrykcyjne przepisy dotyczące wykorzystania systemów zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej.
Artykuł 5 6.
Krajowe organy nadzoru rynku i krajowe organy ochrony danych państw członkowskich, które zostały powiadomione o wykorzystaniu systemów zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw zgodnie z ust. 4, przedkładają Komisji roczne sprawozdania z takiego wykorzystania. W tym celu Komisja przekazuje państwom członkowskim i krajowym organom nadzoru rynku i organom ochrony danych wzór formularza zawierającego informacje na temat liczby decyzji podjętych przez właściwe organy wymiaru sprawiedliwości lub wydający wiążące decyzje niezależny organ administracyjny w odniesieniu do wniosków o udzielenie zezwolenia zgodnie z ust. 3 oraz wyników ich rozpatrzenia.
Artykuł 5 7.
Komisja publikuje roczne sprawozdania na temat wykorzystania systemów zdalnej identyfikacji biometrycznej w czasie rzeczywistym w przestrzeni publicznej do celów ścigania przestępstw, oparte na zagregowanych danych w państwach członkowskich przekazanych w sprawozdaniach rocznych, o których mowa w ust. 6. Te sprawozdania roczne nie mogą zawierać wrażliwych danych operacyjnych dotyczących powiązanych działań w zakresie ścigania przestępstw.
Artykuł 5 8.
Niniejszy artykuł nie ma wpływu na zakazy mające zastosowanie w przypadku, gdy praktyka w zakresie AI narusza inne przepisy prawa Unii.

1.1 Odwołania

1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania

1.3 Powiązane normy

2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania

Wymagania

3. Powiązane normy

Normy
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.