The AI Act introduces the obligation to conduct a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA), with the possibility to reuse a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), and requires the EU Commission to create of an automated tool to support the FRIA process. In this article, we provide our novel exploration of the DPIA and FRIA as information processes to enable the creation of automated tools. We first investigate the information involved in DPIA and FRIA, and then use this to align the two to state where a DPIA can be reused in a FRIA. We then present the FRIA as a 5-step process and discuss the role of an automated tool for each step. Our work provides the necessary foundation for creating and managing information for FRIA and supporting it through an automated tool as required by the AI Act.

What if the main data protection vulnerability is risk management? Data Protection merges three disciplines: data protection law, information security, and risk management. Nonetheless, very little research has been made on the field of data protection risk management, where subjectivity and superficiality are the dominant state of the art. Since the GDPR tells you what to do, but not how to do it, the solution for approaching GDPR compliance is still a gray zone, where the trend is using the rule of thumb. Considering that the most important goal of risk management is to reduce uncertainty in order to take informed decisions, risk management for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the data subjects cannot be disconnected from the impact materialization that data controllers and processors need to assess. This paper proposes a quantitative approach to data protection risk-based compliance from a data controllers perspective, with the aim of proposing a mindset change, where data protection impact assessments can be improved by using data protection analytics, quantitative risk analysis, and calibrating expert opinions.

Different approaches have been adopted in addressing the challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI), some centred on personal data and others on ethics, respectively narrowing and broadening the scope of AI regulation. This contribution aims to demonstrate that a third way is possible, starting from the acknowledgement of the role that human rights can play in regulating the impact of data-intensive systems. The focus on human rights is neither a paradigm shift nor a mere theoretical exercise. Through the analysis of more than 700 decisions and documents of the data protection authorities of six countries, we show that human rights already underpin the decisions in the field of data use. Based on empirical analysis of this evidence, this work presents a methodology and a model for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA). The methodology and related assessment model are focused on AI applications, whose nature and scale require a proper contextualisation of HRIA methodology. Moreover, the proposed models provide a more measurable approach to risk assessment which is consistent with the regulatory proposals centred on risk thresholds. The proposed methodology is tested in concrete case-studies to prove its feasibility and effectiveness. The overall goal is to respond to the growing interest in HRIA, moving from a mere theoretical debate to a concrete and context-specific implementation in the field of data-intensive applications based on AI.

Welcome to Deep Dive: AI, an online event from the Open Source Initiative. We'll be exploring how Artificial Intelligence impacts Open Source software, from developers to businesses to the rest of us. The concept of problem-solving procedures in math has been around since the Babylonians. It can be as simple as an "if, then" statement. Artificial Intelligence, by contrast, is a configuration of algorithms that can self-modify and create new algorithms in response to learned inputs and data.

Commuters in Moscow, Russia now have the option of using the new voluntary payment method called "Face Pay". This method allows them to sign up by scanning their face in front of a camera at a designated turnstile. Prior to this commuters had an option available to submit their card details along with their photo identification. Moscow's transport department has stated that any information stored on commuters to allow them to use Face Pay is encrypted securely. The facial recognition payment system is totally voluntary as all other payment systems also continue to be used.

When Microsoft spends $19.7 billion on a company whose specialties included voice recognition and artificial intelligence (AI) as part of its health sector strategy, you know that AI in the medical field is here to stay. It only makes sense, then, that regulations regarding the technology would not be far behind. Thanks to a leaked document first reported by Politico, we now have our first look at what such regulations might look like in the European Union. The regulation document largely concerns "high-risk" usages of AI. That's not surprising, as the European Commission originally published a whitepaper in February 2020 outlining ideas for regulating such uses of the technology.

Organising ethical debates has long been an efficient way for industry to delay and avoid hard regulation. Europe now needs strong, enforceable rights for its citizens, writes Green MEP Alexandra Geese. If the rules are too weak, there is a too great a risk that our rights and freedoms will be undermined: This currently applies to all applications of artificial intelligence, which up to now have only been based on non-binding ethical principles and values. In this legislation, Europe has the chance to adopt a legal framework for AI with clear rules. We need strong instruments to protect our fundamental rights and democracy.

As artificial intelligence or AI keeps on discovering its way into our everyday lives, its propensity to interfere with human rights just gets progressively extreme. There are a few lenses through which experts examine artificial intelligence. The utilization of international human rights law and its well-created standards and organizations to examine artificial intelligence frameworks can add to the conversations already occurring, and give a universal vocabulary and forums set up to address power differentials. Moreover, human rights laws contribute a system for solutions. General solutions fall inside four general classifications: data protection rules to ensure rights in the data sets used to create and encourage artificial intelligence systems; special safeguards for government uses of artificial intelligence; safeguards for private sector use of artificial intelligence systems; and investment in more research to keep on looking at the future of artificial intelligence and its potential interferences with human rights.

Artificial intelligence makes our life easier and more comfortable. But he, rather, uses of them are a threat to our rights and freedoms. Back in the 1970-ies, when even the word "Internet" had not yet been invented, radical philosopher Herbert Marcuse predicted the emergence of certain new technologies, can change the world. On the one hand, they open new prospects for freedom, but will create new forms of exclusion and will give the government and corporations new mechanisms of control over people. But today his prophecy seem to have been carried out. Professor Kameran Ashraf founded the movement Access Now, which works to protect the rights and freedoms of people in the digital age.

Article 22 regulating "automated individual decision-making" processes 28 29.