+Artigo 82.o Sistemas de IA conformes que apresentam um risco
---+Artigo 82.o 1.
---+Artigo 82.o 2.
---+Artigo 82.o 3.
---+Artigo 82.o 4.
---+Artigo 82.o 5.
|
Artigo 82.o Sistemas de IA conformes que apresentam um risco
-
1. Visão geral
| Título |
Regulamentação |
|
Artigo 82.o 1.
|
Se, uma vez realizada a avaliação prevista no artigo 79.o, após consulta da autoridade de fiscalização do mercado em causa a que se refere o artigo 77.o, n.o 1, a autoridade de fiscalização do mercado de um Estado-Membro concluir que, embora cumpra o presente regulamento, um sistema de IA de risco elevado apresenta um risco para a saúde, a segurança ou os direitos fundamentais ou outros aspetos de proteção do interesse público, exige ao operador correspondente que tome sem demora injustificada, num prazo que pode ser fixado pela autoridade, todas as medidas adequadas para assegurar que, quando for colocado no mercado ou colocado em serviço, o sistema de IA em causa já não apresenta esse risco.
|
|
Artigo 82.o 2.
|
O prestador ou outro operador pertinente deve assegurar que a medida corretiva seja tomada relativamente a todos os sistemas de IA em causa que tenha disponibilizado no mercado da União, no prazo fixado pela autoridade de fiscalização do mercado do Estado-Membro a que se refere o n.o 1.
|
|
Artigo 82.o 3.
|
Os Estados-Membros informam imediatamente a Comissão e os restantes Estados-Membros da conclusão a que se refere o n.o 1. As informações prestadas devem incluir todos os dados disponíveis, em particular os dados necessários à identificação do sistema de IA em causa, a origem e a cadeia de distribuição do sistema de IA, a natureza do risco e a natureza e duração das medidas nacionais adotadas.
|
|
Artigo 82.o 4.
|
A Comissão procede sem demora injustificada a consultas com os Estados-Membros em causa e com os operadores pertinentes e avalia as medidas nacionais adotadas. Em função dos resultados dessa avaliação, a Comissão decide se a medida é justificada e, se necessário, propõe outras medidas adequadas.
|
|
Artigo 82.o 5.
|
A Comissão comunica de imediato a sua decisão aos Estados-Membros em causa e aos operadores pertinentes. A Comissão informa igualmente os outros Estados-Membros.
|
,
1.1 Referências
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Normas relacionadas
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Normas relacionadas
Normas
| Fonte |
Requisito |
|
SCF
|
Non-Conformity Corrective Action
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet) ∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking ∙ Management review of open findings
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal corrective action plan process ∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation ∙ Management review of open findings
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise corrective action management program ∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking ∙ Executive reporting on open findings
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management ∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows ∙ Board-level reporting on material findings
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
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC 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 CPL 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 take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
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.
|
|