Europe’s proposed artificial intelligence (AI) rules should try to benefit from the technology instead of hindering it, an EU lawmaker told Reuters this week.
“There should be a generally positive approach towards artificial intelligence,” European Parliament member Svenja Hahn said in an interview published Wednesday (March 23).
Last year, the European Commission proposed rules governing AI that include fines of as high as 6% of global turnover for violations and stringent safeguards for high-risk applications used for areas such as recruitment, infrastructure, migration, credit scoring, and law enforcement.
READ MORE: TechREG™ Chronicle – Artificial Intelligence
The European Parliament and EU countries are due to arrive at negotiating positions by the end of the year, with Hahn and other lawmakers charged with coming up with a compromise.
At issue is the potential use of facial recognition applications, which positions EU countries that hope to use them for law enforcement and security against concerned civil rights groups.
Hahn, who sits on a cross-party parliamentary committee that this week accepted a report outlining a long-term AI strategy for the EU, said the proposed legislation would benefit from using some of the ideas from the report.
For example, the report says regulators should counter fears about AI by pointing to the role of the technology in battling climate change, providing healthcare innovations, boosting the EU’s competitiveness worldwide, and bolstering its democratic systems.
Hahn told Reuters the definition of AI and the types of risks as set out by the Commission still needs some work.
“The whole regulation needs to be innovation-friendly. It should not bring other aspects, for example, GDPR aspects, into it,” she said, referring to EU privacy rules.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh