laredoyin/eu-ai-act huggingface dataset:
Any processing of biometric data and other personal data involved in the use of AI systems for biometric identification, other than in connection to the use of real-time remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement as regulated by this Regulation, should continue to comply with all requirements resulting from Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. For purposes other than law enforcement, Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 prohibit the processing of biometric data subject to limited exceptions as provided in those Articles. In the application of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the use of remote biometric identification for purposes other than law enforcement has already been subject to prohibition decisions by national data protection authorities.
In accordance with Article 6a of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, as annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland is not bound by the rules laid down in Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (g), to the extent it applies to the use of biometric categorisation systems for activities in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (d), to the extent it applies to the use of AI systems covered by that provision, Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (h), Article 5(2) to (6) and Article 26(10) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 TFEU which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, where Ireland is not bound by the rules governing the forms of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or police cooperation which require compliance with the provisions laid down on the basis of Article 16 TFEU.
In accordance with Articles 2 and 2a of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not bound by rules laid down in Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (g), to the extent it applies to the use of biometric categorisation systems for activities in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (d), to the extent it applies to the use of AI systems covered by that provision, Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (h), (2) to (6) and Article 26(10) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 TFEU, or subject to their application, which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU.
In line with the presumption of innocence, natural persons in the Union should always be judged on their actual behaviour. Natural persons should never be judged on AI-predicted behaviour based solely on their profiling, personality traits or characteristics, such as nationality, place of birth, place of residence, number of children, level of debt or type of car, without a reasonable suspicion of that person being involved in a criminal activity based on objective verifiable facts and without human assessment thereof. Therefore, risk assessments carried out with regard to natural persons in order to assess the likelihood of their offending or to predict the occurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based solely on profiling them or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics should be prohibited. In any case, that prohibition does not refer to or touch upon risk analytics that are not based on the profiling of individuals or on the personality traits and characteristics of individuals, such as AI systems using risk analytics to assess the likelihood of financial fraud by undertakings on the basis of suspicious transactions or risk analytic tools to predict the likelihood of the localisation of narcotics or illicit goods by customs authorities, for example on the basis of known trafficking routes.
There are serious concerns about the scientific basis of AI systems aiming to identify or infer emotions, particularly as expression of emotions vary considerably across cultures and situations, and even within a single individual. Among the key shortcomings of such systems are the limited reliability, the lack of specificity and the limited generalisability. Therefore, AI systems identifying or inferring emotions or intentions of natural persons on the basis of their biometric data may lead to discriminatory outcomes and can be intrusive to the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons. Considering the imbalance of power in the context of work or education, combined with the intrusive nature of these systems, such systems could lead to detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof. Therefore, the placing on the market, the putting into service, or the use of AI systems intended to be used to detect the emotional state of individuals in situations related to the workplace and education should be prohibited. That prohibition should not cover AI systems placed on the market strictly for medical or safety reasons, such as systems intended for therapeutical use.
High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market, put into service or used if they comply with certain mandatory requirements. Those requirements should ensure that high-risk AI systems available in the Union or whose output is otherwise used in the Union do not pose unacceptable risks to important Union public interests as recognised and protected by Union law. On the basis of the New Legislative Framework, as clarified in the Commission notice ‘The “Blue Guide” on the implementation of EU product rules 2022’ (20), the general rule is that more than one legal act of Union harmonisation legislation, such as Regulations (EU) 2017/745 (21) and (EU) 2017/746 (22) of the European Parliament and of the Council or Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (23), may be applicable to one product, since the making available or putting into service can take  place only when the product complies with all applicable Union harmonisation legislation. To ensure consistency and avoid unnecessary administrative burdens or costs, providers of a product that contains one or more high-risk AI systems, to which the requirements of this Regulation and of the Union harmonisation legislation listed in an annex to this Regulation apply, should have flexibility with regard to operational decisions on how to ensure compliance of a product that contains one or more AI systems with all applicable requirements of the Union harmonisation legislation in an optimal manner. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and fundamental rights of persons in the Union and such limitation should minimise any potential restriction to international trade.
AI systems could have an adverse impact on the health and safety of persons, in particular when such systems operate as safety components of products. Consistent with the objectives of Union harmonisation legislation to facilitate the free movement of products in the internal market and to ensure that only safe and otherwise compliant products find their way into the market, it is important that the safety risks that may be generated by a product as a whole due to its digital components, including AI systems, are duly prevented and mitigated. For instance, increasingly autonomous robots, whether in the context of manufacturing or personal assistance and care should be able to safely operate and performs their functions in complex environments. Similarly, in the health sector where the stakes for life and health are particularly high, increasingly sophisticated diagnostics systems and systems supporting human decisions should be reliable and accurate.
The extent of the adverse impact caused by the AI system on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter is of particular relevance when classifying an AI system as high risk. Those rights include the right to human dignity, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, the right to non-discrimination, the right to education, consumer protection, workers’ rights, the rights of persons with disabilities, gender equality, intellectual property rights, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, and the right to good administration. In addition to those rights, it is important to highlight the fact that children have specific rights as enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, further developed in the UNCRC General Comment No 25 as regards the digital environment, both of which require consideration of the children’s vulnerabilities and provision of such protection and care as necessary for their well-being. The fundamental right to a high level of environmental protection enshrined in the Charter and implemented in Union policies should also be considered when assessing the severity of the harm that an AI system can cause, including in relation to the health and safety of persons.
As regards high-risk AI systems that are safety components of products or systems, or which are themselves products or systems falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (24), Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (25), Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (26), Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (27), Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council (28), Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council (29), Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council (30), and Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31), it is appropriate to amend those acts to ensure that the Commission takes into account, on the basis of the technical and regulatory specificities of each sector, and without interfering with existing governance, conformity assessment and enforcement mechanisms and authorities established therein, the mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems laid down in this Regulation when adopting any relevant delegated or implementing acts on the basis of those acts.
As regards AI systems that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, falling within the scope of certain Union harmonisation legislation listed in an annex to this Regulation, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk under this Regulation if the product concerned undergoes the conformity assessment procedure with a third-party conformity assessment body pursuant to that relevant Union harmonisation legislation. In particular, such products are machinery, toys, lifts, equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, radio equipment, pressure equipment, recreational craft equipment, cableway installations, appliances burning gaseous fuels, medical devices, in vitro diagnostic medical devices, automotive and aviation.
The classification of an AI system as high-risk pursuant to this Regulation should not necessarily mean that the product whose safety component is the AI system, or the AI system itself as a product, is considered to be high-risk under the criteria established in the relevant Union harmonisation legislation that applies to the product. This is, in particular, the case for Regulations (EU) 2017/745 and (EU) 2017/746, where a third-party conformity assessment is provided for medium-risk and high-risk products.
As regards stand-alone AI systems, namely high-risk AI systems other than those that are safety components of products, or that are themselves products, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk if, in light of their intended purpose, they pose a high risk of harm to the health and safety or the fundamental rights of persons, taking into account both the severity of the possible harm and its probability of occurrence and they are used in a number of specifically pre-defined areas specified in this Regulation. The identification of those systems is based on the same methodology and criteria envisaged also for any future amendments of the list of high-risk AI systems that the Commission should be empowered to adopt, via delegated acts, to take into account the rapid pace of technological development, as well as the potential changes in the use of AI systems.
As biometric data constitutes a special category of personal data, it is appropriate to classify as high-risk several  critical-use cases of biometric systems, insofar as their use is permitted under relevant Union and national law.  Technical inaccuracies of AI systems intended for the remote biometric identification of natural persons can lead to  biased results and entail discriminatory effects. The risk of such biased results and discriminatory effects is  particularly relevant with regard to age, ethnicity, race, sex or disabilities. Remote biometric identification systems  should therefore be classified as high-risk in view of the risks that they pose. Such a classification excludes AI  systems intended to be used for biometric verification, including authentication, the sole purpose of which is to  confirm that a specific natural person is who that person claims to be and to confirm the identity of a natural person  for the sole purpose of having access to a service, unlocking a device or having secure access to premises. In addition,  AI systems intended to be used for biometric categorization according to sensitive attributes or characteristics  protected under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the basis of biometric data, in so far as these are not  prohibited under this Regulation, and emotion recognition systems that are not prohibited under this Regulation,  should be classified as high-risk. Biometric systems which are intended to be used solely for the purpose of enabling  cybersecurity and personal data protection measures should not be considered to be high-risk AI systems.
As regards the management and operation of critical infrastructure, it is appropriate to classify as high-risk the AI  systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of critical digital infrastructure  as listed in point (8) of the Annex to Directive (EU) 2022/2557, road traffic and the supply of water, gas, heating and  electricity, since their failure or malfunctioning may put at risk the life and health of persons at large scale and lead to  appreciable disruptions in the ordinary conduct of social and economic activities. Safety components of critical  infrastructure, including critical digital infrastructure, are systems used to directly protect the physical integrity of  critical infrastructure or the health and safety of persons and property but which are not necessary in order for the system to function. The failure or malfunctioning of such components might directly lead to risks to the physical  integrity of critical infrastructure and thus to risks to health and safety of persons and property. Components  intended to be used solely for cybersecurity purposes should not qualify as safety components. Examples of safety  components of such critical infrastructure may include systems for monitoring water pressure or fire alarm  controlling systems in cloud computing centres.
The deployment of AI systems in education is important to promote high-quality digital education and training and  to allow all learners and teachers to acquire and share the necessary digital skills and competences, including media  literacy, and critical thinking, to take an active part in the economy, society, and in democratic processes. However,  AI systems used in education or vocational training, in particular for determining access or admission, for assigning  persons to educational and vocational training institutions or programmes at all levels, for evaluating learning  outcomes of persons, for assessing the appropriate level of education for an individual and materially influencing the  level of education and training that individuals will receive or will be able to access or for monitoring and detecting  prohibited behaviour of students during tests should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they may determine  the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore may affect that person’s ability to secure  a livelihood. When improperly designed and used, such systems may be particularly intrusive and may violate the  right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns  of discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain  racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation.
AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self-employment, in particular for the  recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions affecting terms of the work-related relationship,  promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships, for allocating tasks on the basis of individual  behaviour, personal traits or characteristics and for monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual  relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may have an appreciable impact on future  career prospects, livelihoods of those persons and workers’ rights. Relevant work-related contractual relationships  should, in a meaningful manner, involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to  in the Commission Work Programme 2021. Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion,  or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of  discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial  or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of such persons  may also undermine their fundamental rights to data protection and privacy.
AI systems used in migration, asylum and border control management affect persons who are often in particularly  vulnerable position and who are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the competent public authorities. The  accuracy, non-discriminatory nature and transparency of the AI systems used in those contexts are therefore  particularly important to guarantee respect for the fundamental rights of the affected persons, in particular their  rights to free movement, non-discrimination, protection of private life and personal data, international protection  and good administration. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk, insofar as their use is permitted under  relevant Union and national law, AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of competent public authorities or  by Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies charged with tasks in the fields of migration, asylum and border  control management as polygraphs and similar tools, for assessing certain risks posed by natural persons entering  the territory of a Member State or applying for visa or asylum, for assisting competent public authorities for the  examination, including related assessment of the reliability of evidence, of applications for asylum, visa and residence  permits and associated complaints with regard to the objective to establish the eligibility of the natural persons  applying for a status, for the purpose of detecting, recognising or identifying natural persons in the context of  migration, asylum and border control management, with the exception of verification of travel documents. AI  systems in the area of migration, asylum and border control management covered by this Regulation should comply  with the relevant procedural requirements set by the Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and  of the Council (32), the Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (33), and other relevant  Union law. The use of AI systems in migration, asylum and border control management should, in no circumstances,  be used by Member States or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies as a means to circumvent their  international obligations under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July  1951 as amended by the Protocol of 31 January 1967. Nor should they be used to in any way infringe on the  principle of non-refoulement, or to deny safe and effective legal avenues into the territory of the Union, including  the right to international protection.
Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as  high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, the rule of law, individual freedoms as well  as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and  opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority or on its behalf  to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set  of facts. AI systems intended to be used by alternative dispute resolution bodies for those purposes should also be  considered to be high-risk when the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolution proceedings produce legal effects  for the parties. The use of AI tools can support the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence, but  should not replace it: the final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity. The classification of AI  systems as high-risk should not, however, extend to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities  that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or  pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks.
Without prejudice to the rules provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the  Council (34), and in order to address the risks of undue external interference with the right to vote enshrined in  Article 39 of the Charter, and of adverse effects on democracy and the rule of law, AI systems intended to be used to  influence the outcome of an election or referendum or the voting behaviour of natural persons in the exercise of  their vote in elections or referenda should be classified as high-risk AI systems with the exception of AI systems  whose output natural persons are not directly exposed to, such as tools used to organise, optimise and structure  political campaigns from an administrative and logistical point of view.
The fact that an AI system is classified as a high-risk AI system under this Regulation should not be interpreted as  indicating that the use of the system is lawful under other acts of Union law or under national law compatible with  Union law, such as on the protection of personal data, on the use of polygraphs and similar tools or other systems to  detect the emotional state of natural persons. Any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the  applicable requirements resulting from the Charter and from the applicable acts of secondary Union law and  national law. This Regulation should not be understood as providing for the legal ground for processing of personal  data, including special categories of personal data, where relevant, unless it is specifically otherwise provided for in  this Regulation.