+Artykuł 7 Zmiany w załączniku III
---+Artykuł 7 1.
---+Artykuł 7 2.
---+Artykuł 7 3.
|
Artykuł 7 Zmiany w załączniku III
-
1. Przegląd
| Tytuł |
Regulacja |
|
Artykuł 7 1.
|
Komisja jest uprawniona do przyjmowania aktów delegowanych zgodnie z art. 97 w celu zmiany załącznika III poprzez dodanie systemów AI wysokiego ryzyka lub zmianę przypadków ich wykorzystania, w przypadku gdy spełnione są oba poniższe warunki:
a)
systemy AI są przeznaczone do wykorzystania w którymkolwiek z obszarów wymienionych w załączniku III;
b)
systemy AI stwarzają ryzyko szkody dla zdrowia i bezpieczeństwa lub ryzyko niepożądanego wpływu na prawa podstawowe i ryzyko to jest równoważne ryzyku szkody lub niepożądanego wpływu, jakie stwarzają systemy AI wysokiego ryzyka wymienione już w załączniku III, lub jest od niego większe.
|
|
Artykuł 7 2.
|
Przy ocenie warunku określonego w ust. 1 lit. b) Komisja uwzględnia następujące kryteria:
a)
przeznaczenie systemu AI;
b)
zakres, w jakim system AI jest wykorzystywany lub prawdopodobnie będzie wykorzystywany;
c)
charakter i ilość danych przetwarzanych i wykorzystywanych przez system AI, w szczególności, czy przetwarzane są szczególne kategorie danych osobowych;
d)
zakres, w jakim system AI działa autonomicznie oraz możliwość unieważnienia przez człowieka decyzji lub zaleceń, które mogą prowadzić do potencjalnej szkody;
e)
zakres, w jakim wykorzystywanie systemu AI już wyrządziło szkodę dla zdrowia i bezpieczeństwa lub miało niepożądany wpływ na prawa podstawowe lub wzbudziło istotne obawy co do prawdopodobieństwa wystąpienia takiej szkody lub niepożądanego wpływu, czego potwierdzeniem są np. zgłoszenia lub poparte dokumentami twierdzenia przedstawione właściwym organom krajowym, lub, w stosownych przypadkach, inne zgłoszenia;
f)
potencjalny zakres takiej szkody lub takiego niepożądanego wpływu, w szczególności pod względem ich nasilenia i możliwości oddziaływania na wiele osób lub nieproporcjonalnego oddziaływania na określoną grupę osób;
g)
zakres, w jakim osoby potencjalnie poszkodowane lub doświadczające niepożądanego wpływu są zależne od wyniku działania systemu AI, w szczególności ze względu na fakt, że z przyczyn praktycznych lub prawnych nie jest racjonalnie możliwa rezygnacja z objęcia tym wynikiem;
h)
zakres, w jakim występuje nierówny układ sił lub osoby potencjalnie poszkodowane lub doświadczające niepożądanego wpływu znajdują się w słabszym położeniu względem podmiotu stosującego system AI, w szczególności z powodu statusu, władzy, wiedzy, sytuacji gospodarczej lub społecznej lub wieku;
i)
zakres, w jakim wynik uzyskany przy wykorzystaniu systemu AI jest łatwy do skorygowania lub odwracalny, przy uwzględnieniu dostępnych rozwiązań technicznych umożliwiających jego skorygowanie lub odwrócenie, przy czym za łatwe do skorygowania lub odwracalne nie uznaje się wyników działania systemu mających niepożądany wpływ na zdrowie, bezpieczeństwo lub prawa podstawowe;
j)
rozmiary i prawdopodobieństwo korzyści płynących z wdrożenia systemu AI dla osób fizycznych, grup lub ogółu społeczeństwa, w tym możliwość poprawy bezpieczeństwa produktów;
k)
zakres, w jakim obowiązujące prawo Unii przewiduje:
(i)
skuteczne środki ochrony prawnej w związku z ryzykiem stwarzanym przez system AI, z wyłączeniem roszczeń o odszkodowanie;
(ii)
skuteczne środki zapobiegania temu ryzyku lub jego znacznego minimalizowania.
|
|
Artykuł 7 3.
|
Komisja jest uprawniona do przyjmowania zgodnie z art. 97 aktów delegowanych w celu zmiany wykazu zawartego w załączniku III poprzez usunięcie systemów AI wysokiego ryzyka, jeżeli spełnione są oba poniższe warunki:
a)
dany system AI wysokiego ryzyka nie stwarza już żadnego znaczącego ryzyka dla praw podstawowych, zdrowia lub bezpieczeństwa, biorąc pod uwagę kryteria wymienione w ust. 2;
b)
usunięcie z wykazu nie obniża ogólnego poziomu ochrony zdrowia, bezpieczeństwa i praw podstawowych przewidzianego w prawie Unii.
|
,
1.1 Odwołania
1.2 Zidentyfikowane wymagania
1.3 Powiązane normy
2. Zidentyfikowane wymagania
Wymagania
| Źródło |
Wymaganie |
3. Powiązane normy
Normy
| Źródło |
Wymaganie |
|
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.
|
|