Hi Dimi, regarding TERREG you wrote that hopefully next time the MEPs and staffers won't miss a deadline and run a procedure check. Do you think they really missed it? I'm wondering if the topic appeared so delicate to some that maybe they used the not-filing-a-motion as a deliberate tactic, rather than engage. Do you have thoughts on that?
Best Micha --- Michael Jahn Leiter Programme Director of Programs Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissens der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de Aktuelle Nachrichten rund um Wikipedia, Wikimedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter: Zur Anmeldung <https://www.wikimedia.de/newsletter/>. Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. Am Do., 29. Apr. 2021 um 16:19 Uhr schrieb Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < [email protected]>: > Wow! What a month! The Terrorist Content Regulation passed without a final > vote, an Artificial Intelligence law was proposed unexpectedly quickly and > over 600 amendment proposals to the Data Governance Act were tabled. And, > and... we started a blog! A lot to unpack, so we will spare you the update > on the Data Services Act this time around, as no big shifts occurred there > anyway. > > Anna & Dimi > > This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor > > ====== > > TERREG > > In an unexpected turn of events, Terrorist Content Regulation has been > adopted without a final vote. It has been possible due to a procedural > peculiarity [01] that defaults legislation “inherited” from the previous > legislative term to an adoption without a vote. A vote is a possibility > if a political group or 71 MEPs puts a motion to reject it or to open it up > for amendments. But since nobody filed one within a given deadline, the > adoption was simply announced at the plenary session, to the surprise of > many MEPs. > > -- > > This way, the dangers of content filtering, over-policing of content by > state and private actors, and the cross-border prerogatives for governments > will become law in 12 months from now without a final stamp from the > elected representatives of the European citizens. As much as we didn’t > expect a miracle of rejection of a hard-fought-for proposal [02], in > democracy it is important to see where your representatives stand through a > vote. > > We can only hope that next time, the MEPs and staffers who fought hard for > this text to be better, won’t miss a deadline and run a procedure check as > part of their preparations to an important vote. > > ====== > > AI Regulation > > The European Commission proposed the world’s first AI law. Curiously, > the EU and US didn’t seem out of sync on this - the Federal Trade > Commission published its own set of guidance [03] with partially > overlapping requirements. But back to Europe: The proposal wants to ban > some uses of AI (real-time facial recognition in public places & social > scoring) and to impose obligations on “high-risk” uses (think credit > scoring, self-driving cars, social benefits). It requires high-quality data > sets, testing for discriminatory outcomes and a certain amount of > transparency. The devil is, as always, in the detail. > > --- > > Bans: The proposed regulation outlines a list of banned artificial > intelligence applications that includes government-conducted social > scoring, real-time biometric recognition systems (e.g. facial recognition) > and practices that “manipulate persons through subliminal techniques beyond > their consciousness” or “exploit vulnerable groups such as children or > people with disabilities''. [04] As you can expect, these bans come with > numerous exceptions. Real-time facial recognition, for instance, shall be > allowed when looking for missing children or in the case of imminent > terrorist threat. Expect long debates and wrestling on concrete wordings. > > --- > > High-risk Uses: A further category of regulated AI applications are > “high-risk uses”. Of course, the details of the definition will be key > here. Expect some fluffy wording combined with a list of concrete examples > in an annex [05], which is supposed to be updated by the European > Commission over the years. The proposed Annex includes uses in transport > (think self-driving cars), education, employment, credit scoring or > benefits applications, asylum and border control management. This list will > be a major lobbying battle. lists uses where AI will always be “high > risk,” such as employment and migration control. > > When applying AI to high risk uses the operator, producer or distributor > is required to have a quality management system, undergo a conformity > assessment (through national authority or self-assessment), keep > documentation & logs, notify a national authority, ensure human oversight, > take corrective actions when risks are recognised and apply the CE marking. > [06] > > A lot to unpack here and, of course, the devil is in the details. Expect > us to look very closely into the education AI uses and what exactly will be > covered. > > --- > > Transparency Obligations: There are even fluffier transparency > obligations for “certain AI systems”. In a very simplified translation from > legalese the rule basically wants to say that if an AI system interacts > with natural persons, the person must know that it is AI/ML and what it > does (e.g. if it recognises emotions). > > --- > > First reactions and legislative process: We think the proposal is filled > with good intentions that can end up as very sensible general rules for AI > development and deployment or can terminate in a bureaucratic hell for > everyone. Not sure we mentioned this before, but it looks like the devil > will be in the details. The European Consumer Protection Bureau (BEUC) > criticised that consumers aren’t given a straightforward way to enforce > their rights and access to redress and remedies. [07] EDRi and the European > Data Protection Supervisor call for adding predictive policing and all > forms of biometric surveillance in public places into unacceptable uses > category. [08] Tech Industry trade lobbies such as CCIA and DOT Europe were > quick to warn against unnecessary red tape, but also seemed to see some > sense in the approach.[09] We are now waiting for the European Parliament > committee to fight over and agree which one will be responsible - a > three-way race between the Internal Market, Legal Affairs and Civil Rights > committees. > > ====== > > Data Governance Act > > --- > > We now have over 600 amendments tabled on the DGA. A lot to unpack, but we > will basically support the types of changes: > > 1. Amendments that will ensure that general interest projects (such as > freely licensed knowledge resources) aren’t obliged to register with a > national authority (a requirement planned for some cross-industry > data-sharing clearinghouses). Currently the wording is unclear. > > 2. Amdements that will restrict the use of the sui generis database rights. > > 3. Amendments that will ensure that the DGA doesn’t interfere with the > GDPR. > > The meetings of the MEPs to discuss their amendments and look for > compromises are scheduled for May and April, but will likely continue after > summer. All amendments: [10][11] > > ====== > > wikimedia.brussels > > --- > > Now that stand-alone blogs aren’t cool and hip anymore, we have finally > gotten around to starting one :/ The idea behind it is to have a place to > write more regularly on legislative files and to establish it as a source > for EU policymakers. Here are some reads that are already online: > > - > > E-Evidence: trilogues kick off on safeguards vs. efficiency - Dimi > lets us in on the sensitivities around passing on user data for the > purposes of criminal investigations > - > > > > https://wikimedia.brussels/e-evidence-trilogues-kick-off-on-safeguards-vs-efficiency/ > > - > > What happens in Geneva shouldn’t stay in Geneva: Wikimedia and > international copyright negotiations - Justus (WMDE) explains why the > transparency of international negotiations on intellectual property matters > should be increased > - > > > > https://wikimedia.brussels/what-happens-in-geneva-shouldnt-stay-in-geneva-wikimedia-and-international-copyright-negotiations/ > > - > > Sanctioning the giants – will the internet be better with the Digital > Markets Act? - Anna weighs in if the hopes for a reform of the > platforms’ ecosystem have been fulfilled in the DMA > - > > > > https://wikimedia.brussels/sanctioning-the-giants-will-the-internet-be-better-with-the-digital-markets-act/ > > - > > How the DSA can help Wikipedia – or at least not hurt it - because > terms and conditions and community moderation rules are different and they > both matter > - > > > > https://wikimedia.brussels/how-dsa-can-help-wikipedia-or-at-least-not-break-it/ > > > ====== > > ====== > > END > > ====== > > [01] > https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RULES-9-2021-01-18-RULE-069_EN.html > > > [02] > https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14308-2020-REV-1/en/pdf > > [03] > https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2021/04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai > > [04] > https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-laying-down-harmonised-rules-artificial-intelligence-artificial-intelligence > > [05]https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=75789 > > [06]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking > > [07] > https://www.beuc.eu/publications/eu-proposal-artificial-intelligence-law-weak-consumer-protection/html > > [08]https://twitter.com/edri/status/1386968653996888069 > > [09] > https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/21/europe-lays-out-plan-for-risk-based-ai-rules-to-boost-trust-and-uptake/ > > [10]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AM-692584_EN.pdf > > [11]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AM-691468_EN.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
