/ EU Artificial Intelligence Act – recommendations on public transparency

Ensure consistent and meaningful public
transparency
April 2022

Context
The draft AI Act sets out to establish and maintain a EU database for stand-alone high-risk AI
systems in Article 60. This database offers a chance for increased public transparency on AI
systems vis-à-vis impacted individuals and civil society, and could greatly facilitate public
interest research. Given that the AI Act largely depends on self-assessment proceduresby providers and users of AI systems, the EU database offers a way of enhancingaccountability through public scrutiny. Thus, it could ensure effective public transparency
on AI systems and therefore provide a necessary – but not yet sufficient – first step on thepath towards a responsible use of AI systems that is in line with fundamental rights.

Why the public transparency database must cover uses of AI systems•The database currently only contains information given by providers of systems classified
as high-risk under the AI Act. Thus, it lacks information on the actual uses of these systems,
even though the effects AI systems have on individuals and society highly depend on theway and context in which they are used. This loophole will prevent the public from findingout where, by whom, in which context, and for what purpose(s) high-risk AI systems are
actually used – and hence will undermine the purpose of the database. Thus, in addition
to the obligation incumbent on providers of high-risk AI systems, there must be anobligation on users to register all uses of high-risk AI systems in the EU database
before deployment, providing basic information on key actors, purpose and model, andresults of the impact assessment that should be incumbent on users.1•In addition, due to the unique role and responsibility public authorities bear, the sensitive
personal data they have access to, the consequential effects their decisions have on
individuals, and thus their primary obligation to respect, protect and fulfil fundamental
rights, public authorities should be subject to more stringent transparency requirements

1This obligation is further detailed in the issue paper ‘Introduce obligations on users of high-risk AI systems’ prepared by EDRiet al. The document inter alia obliges users to conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment before putting a high-risk AI
system into use.

when using AI systems. Hence, any uses of AI systems – regardless of their level ofrisk – by or on behalf of public authorities should be registered within the EU
database, providing basic information on key actors, purpose and model, and results ofany impact assessment conducted under obligations imposed by the AI Act 2 or voluntarily.
•Furthermore, meaningful public-facing transparency in the EU database should also beensured with regard to further AI systems that pose a significant risk to individuals
but that haven’t been categorized as high-risk (including biometric categorisation
systems as well as AI systems which assess or evaluate people and influence their accessto goods and services and thereby pose an inherent risk of manipulation, consumer harm,discrimination or even a threat to health and safety 3). Information about the use of thesesystems should be made available to individuals subjected4, but it is equally important toensure meaningful public-facing transparency on the use of these systems in the EU
database, which would increase their accountability and opportunities to identify
potential abuses.

This paper was drafted by AlgorithmWatch with the support of Access Now, European Digital
Rights (EDRi), European Disability Forum (EDF) and Panoptykon Foundation. It is supportedby the following organizations:

The paper follows the Joint Civil Society Statement 'An EU Artificial Intelligence Act for
Fundamental Rights' signed by 123 organisations in November 2021.

2

This obligation is further detailed in the issue paper ‘Introduce obligations on users of high-risk AI systems’ prepared by EDRiet al. The document inter alia obliges users to conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment before putting a high-risk AIsystem into use.
3The scope of the list of these systems is part of the issue paper ‘Ensure meaningful transparency of AI systems for affected
people’ prepared by Panoptykon Foundation et al.
4This obligation is the subject of the issue paper ‘Ensure meaningful transparency of AI systems for affected people’ preparedby Panoptykon Foundation et al.