+Artigo 5.o Práticas de IA proibidas
---+Artigo 5.o 1.
---+Article 5 1a.
---+Article 5 1b.
---+Artigo 5.o 2.
---+Artigo 5.o 3.
---+Artigo 5.o 4.
---+Artigo 5.o 5.
---+Artigo 5.o 6.
---+Artigo 5.o 7.
---+Artigo 5.o 8.

Artigo 5.o Práticas de IA proibidas

-

1. Visão geral

,
Artigo 5.o 1.

Estão proibidas as seguintes práticas de IA:

a) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço ou a utilização de um sistema de IA que empregue técnicas subliminares que contornem a consciência de uma pessoa, ou técnicas manifestamente manipuladoras ou enganadoras, com o objetivo ou o efeito de distorcer substancialmente o comportamento de uma pessoa ou de um grupo de pessoas prejudicando de forma considerável a sua capacidade de tomar uma decisão informada e levando, assim, a que tomem uma decisão que, caso contrário, não tomariam, de uma forma que cause ou seja razoavelmente suscetível de causar danos significativos a essa ou a outra pessoa, ou a um grupo de pessoas;

b) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço ou a utilização de um sistema de IA que explore vulnerabilidades de uma pessoa singular ou de um grupo específico de pessoas devidas à sua idade, incapacidade ou situação socioeconómica específica, com o objetivo ou o efeito de distorcer substancialmente o comportamento dessa pessoa ou de uma pessoa pertencente a esse grupo de uma forma que cause ou seja razoavelmente suscetível de causar danos significativos a essa ou a outra pessoa;

▼M1

b-A) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço ou a utilização de um sistema de IA que gere ou manipule imagens, vídeos, áudios realistas ou material similar que representem as partes íntimas de uma pessoa singular identificável ou uma pessoa identificável envolvida num comportamento sexualmente explícito, sem que a pessoa em causa tenha dado livremente o seu consentimento específico, informado, inequívoco e explícito a essa geração ou manipulação;

b-B) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço ou a utilização de um sistema de IA que gere, manipule ou reproduza materiais ou espetáculos na aceção do artigo 2.o, alíneas c) e e), da Diretiva 2011/93/UE, exceto quando, ao abrigo do direito nacional, for aplicável uma causa de exclusão da ilicitude;

▼B

c) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço ou a utilização de sistemas de IA para avaliação ou classificação de pessoas singulares ou grupos de pessoas durante um certo período com base no seu comportamento social ou em características de personalidade ou pessoais, conhecidas, inferidas ou previsíveis, em que a classificação social conduza a uma das seguintes situações ou a ambas:

i) 

tratamento prejudicial ou desfavorável de certas pessoas singulares ou grupos de pessoas em contextos sociais não relacionados com os contextos nos quais os dados foram originalmente gerados ou recolhidos,

ii) 

tratamento prejudicial ou desfavorável de certas pessoas singulares ou grupos de pessoas que seja injustificado ou desproporcionado face ao seu comportamento social ou à gravidade do mesmo;

d) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço para esta finalidade específica ou a utilização de um sistema de IA para a realização de avaliações de risco de pessoas singulares a fim de avaliar ou prever o risco de uma pessoa singular cometer uma infração penal, com base exclusivamente na definição de perfis de uma pessoa singular ou na avaliação dos seus traços e características de personalidade. Esta proibição não se aplica aos sistemas de IA utilizados para apoiar a avaliação humana do envolvimento de uma pessoa numa atividade criminosa, que já se baseia em factos objetivos e verificáveis diretamente ligados a uma atividade criminosa;

e) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço para esta finalidade específica ou a utilização de sistemas de IA que criam ou expandem bases de dados de reconhecimento facial através da recolha aleatória de imagens faciais a partir da Internet ou de imagens de televisão em circuito fechado (TVCF);

f) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço para esta finalidade específica ou a utilização de sistemas de IA para inferir emoções de uma pessoa singular no local de trabalho e nas instituições de ensino, exceto nos casos em que o sistema de IA se destine a ser instalado ou introduzido no mercado por razões médicas ou de segurança;

g) 

A colocação no mercado, a colocação em serviço para este fim específico, ou a utilização de sistemas de categorização biométrica que classifiquem individualmente as pessoas singulares com base nos seus dados biométricos para deduzir ou inferir a sua raça, opiniões políticas, filiação sindical, convicções religiosas ou filosóficas, vida sexual ou orientação sexual; esta proibição não abrange rotulagens nem filtragens de conjuntos de dados biométricos legalmente adquiridos, tais como imagens, com base em dados biométricos ou na categorização de dados biométricos no domínio da aplicação da lei;

h) 

A utilização de sistemas de identificação biométrica à distância em «tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público para efeitos de aplicação da lei, a menos e na medida em que essa utilização seja estritamente necessária para um dos seguintes fins:

i) 

busca seletiva de vítimas específicas de rapto, tráfico de seres humanos ou exploração sexual de seres humanos, bem como a busca por pessoas desaparecidas,

ii) 

prevenção de uma ameaça específica, substancial e iminente à vida ou à segurança física de pessoas singulares ou de uma ameaça real e atual ou real e previsível de um ataque terrorista,

iii) 

a localização ou identificação de uma pessoa suspeita de ter cometido uma infração penal, para efeitos da realização de uma investigação criminal, ou instauração de ação penal ou execução de uma sanção penal por alguma das infrações referidas no anexo II e puníveis no Estado-Membro em causa com pena ou medida de segurança privativa de liberdade de duração máxima não inferior a quatro anos.

A alínea h) do primeiro parágrafo não prejudica o disposto no artigo 9.o do Regulamento (UE) 2016/679 no que respeita ao tratamento de dados biométricos para outros fins que não a aplicação da lei.
Article 5 1a.

For the purposes of paragraph 1, first subparagraph, points (ba) and (bb):

(a) 

the placing on the market or putting into service of an AI system that generates or manipulates the material or performance referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (ba) or (bb) is only prohibited where:

(i) 

that generation or manipulation is the intended purpose of the AI system; or

(ii) 

the system’s design, training, architecture, capabilities or user-facing functionalities make that generation or manipulation a reasonably foreseeable and reproducible outcome, without requiring significant technical modification, and the system does not have reasonable and adequate technical safety measures and other safeguards to reliably prevent that generation or manipulation, taking into account reasonably foreseeable misuse, and to correct observed or reported misuse;

(b) 

the use of an AI system that generates or manipulates the material or performance referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, points (ba) and (bb) is only prohibited where the deployer uses the system for the purpose of generating or manipulating such material or performance.
Article 5 1b.
For the purposes of paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (ba), an AI system that manipulates material in a way that does not increase the exposure of any depicted intimate parts or alter the nature of any depicted sexually explicit activities shall not constitute manipulation.
Artigo 5.o 2.

A utilização de sistemas de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público para efeitos de aplicação da lei com vista a alcançar qualquer um dos fins previstos no n.o 1, primeiro parágrafo, alínea h), deve ser implantada para os fins descritos na referida alínea, apenas com a finalidade de confirmar a identidade da pessoa especificamente visada e deve ter em conta os seguintes elementos:

a) 

A natureza da situação que origina a possível utilização, em especial a gravidade, a probabilidade e a magnitude dos danos causados na ausência da utilização do sistema;

b) 

As consequências da utilização do sistema para os direitos e as liberdades de todas as pessoas afetadas, em especial a gravidade, a probabilidade e a magnitude dessas consequências.

Além disso, a utilização de sistemas de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público para efeitos de aplicação da lei com vista a alcançar qualquer um dos objetivos referidos no n.o 1, primeiro parágrafo, alínea h), do presente artigo deve observar salvaguardas e condições necessárias e proporcionadas em conformidade com o direito nacional que autoriza tal utilização, nomeadamente no respeitante a limitações temporais, geográficas e das pessoas visadas. A utilização de um sistema de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público só é autorizada se a autoridade responsáveis pela aplicação da lei tiver concluído uma avaliação de impacto sobre os direitos fundamentais, conforme previsto no artigo 27.o, e tiver registado o sistema na base de dados da UE em conformidade com o artigo 49.o. No entanto, em casos de urgência devidamente justificados, a utilização desses sistemas pode ser iniciada sem o registo na base de dados da UE, desde que esse registo seja concluído sem demora injustificada.
Artigo 5.o 3.
No tocante ao n.o 1, primeiro parágrafo, alínea h), e ao n.o 2, cada utilização de um sistema de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público para efeitos de aplicação da lei está sujeita a autorização prévia concedida por uma autoridade judiciária, ou uma autoridade administrativa independente cuja decisão seja vinculativa, do Estado-Membro no qual a utilização terá lugar, após apresentação de um pedido fundamentado em conformidade com as regras de execução previstas no direito nacional a que se refere o n.o 5. Contudo, numa situação de urgência devidamente justificada, a utilização do sistema pode ser iniciada sem uma autorização, desde que essa autorização seja solicitada sem demora injustificada, o mais tardar no prazo de 24 horas. Se o pedido de autorização for rejeitado, a utilização do sistema é suspensa com efeito imediato, e todos os dados, bem como os resultados dessa utilização, são imediatamente descartados e eliminados.

A autoridade judiciária competente, ou uma autoridade administrativa independente cuja decisão seja vinculativa, apenas concede a autorização se considerar, com base em dados objetivos ou indícios claros que lhe tenham sido apresentados, que a utilização do sistema de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em apreço é necessária e proporcionada para alcançar um dos objetivos especificados no n.o 1, primeiro parágrafo, alínea h), conforme identificado no pedido, e, em especial, se limita ao estritamente necessário no que diz respeito ao período de tempo e ao âmbito geográfico e pessoal. Ao decidir sobre o pedido, a autoridade judiciária ou administrativa competente tem em conta os elementos referidos no n.o 2. As decisões que produzam efeitos jurídicos adversos sobre uma pessoa não podem ser tomadas exclusivamente com base nos resultados saídos do sistema de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real».
Artigo 5.o 4.
Sem prejuízo do disposto no n.o 3, cada utilização de um sistema de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público para efeitos de aplicação da lei é notificada à autoridade de fiscalização do mercado pertinente e à autoridade nacional de proteção de dados, em conformidade com as regras nacionais a que se refere o n.o 5. A notificação deve conter, no mínimo, as informações especificadas no n.o 6 e não pode incluir dados operacionais sensíveis.
Artigo 5.o 5.
Um Estado-Membro pode decidir prever a possibilidade de autorizar total ou parcialmente a utilização de sistemas de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público para fins de aplicação da lei dentro dos limites e sob as condições enumeradas no n.o 1, primeiro parágrafo, alínea h), e nos n.os 2 e 3. Os Estados-Membros em causa estabelecem na sua legislação nacional as regras de execução aplicáveis ao pedido, à emissão e ao exercício das autorizações a que se refere o n.o 3, bem como à supervisão e comunicação das mesmas. Essas regras especificam igualmente para quais dos objetivos enumerados no n.o 1, primeiro parágrafo, alínea h), inclusive para quais das infrações penais referidas na subalínea iii) da referida alínea, as autoridades competentes podem ser autorizadas a usar esses sistemas para efeitos de aplicação da lei. Os Estados-Membros notificam essas regras à Comissão o mais tardar 30 dias após a sua adoção. Os Estados-Membros podem introduzir, em conformidade com o direito da União, legislação mais restritiva sobre a utilização de sistemas de identificação biométrica à distância.
Artigo 5.o 6.
As autoridades nacionais de fiscalização do mercado e as autoridades nacionais de proteção de dados dos Estados-Membros que tenham sido notificadas da utilização de sistemas de identificação biométrica à distância «em tempo real» em espaços acessíveis ao público para efeitos de aplicação da lei nos termos do n.o 4 apresentam à Comissão relatórios anuais sobre essa utilização. Para o efeito, a Comissão disponibiliza aos Estados-Membros e às autoridades nacionais de fiscalização do mercado e de proteção de dados um modelo que inclua informações sobre o número de decisões tomadas pelas autoridades judiciárias competentes, ou por uma autoridade administrativa independente cuja decisão seja vinculativa, após os pedidos de autorização nos termos do n.o 3, bem como sobre o seu resultado.
Artigo 5.o 7.
A Comissão publica relatórios anuais sobre a utilização de sistemas de identificação biométrica à distância em tempo real em espaços acessíveis ao público para efeitos de aplicação da lei, baseados em dados agregados nos Estados-Membros com base nos relatórios anuais a que se refere o n.o 6. Esses relatórios anuais não podem incluir dados operacionais sensíveis sobre as atividades de aplicação da lei conexas.
Artigo 5.o 8.
O presente artigo não afeta as proibições aplicáveis sempre que uma prática de IA infrinja outra legislação da União.

1.1 Referências

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Normas relacionadas

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Normas relacionadas

Normas
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.