On Tuesday 13 June, on the eve of the European Parliament vote, MEPs debated the legislation on artificial intelligence (‘AI Act’). While the European Parliament overall welcomed a “historic” text, the discussions confirmed the divisions between the EPP and the S&D, Renew Europe, Greens/EFA and The Left groups on the issue of remote biometric identification.
“Seeing several political groups on the left and even in the centre refusing to use artificial intelligence to protect children, catch criminals and protect us from terrorism says a lot. When ideology takes precedence over safety, when positions of principle take precedence over emergency situations, it says a lot about the inconsistency of certain political groups”, said Geoffroy Didier (EPP, French).
“They will then have to explain themselves to the public. Everyone will have to accept their responsibilities”, he added.
Last week, the EPP group tabled several amendments aimed at returning to the provisions of the Commission’s initial proposal, which provided for real-time biometric identification to be authorised in exceptional circumstances, such as the search for a missing person, locating a suspect in a serious crime or preventing a terrorist threat (see EUROPE 13197/5).
The EPP’s decision came as a surprise within the European Parliament. Manfred Weber’s group had in fact obtained the possibility of remote biometric identification after the event, with the authorisation of the courts, to enable the authorities to investigate. This compromise was reached after the EPP group saw its amendment to authorise this practice rejected in a separate vote in the European Parliament committees on 11 May (see EUROPE 13180/1).
“I think we need an extremely realistic approach. The Commission’s proposal was very balanced, with targeted exceptions to the ban on certain technologies. This is included in the EPP amendments to allow the use of AI in very targeted situations”, added Jeroen Lenaers (EPP, Dutch).
However, the line taken by the European Parliament’s other political groups seems clear. “We do not want mass surveillance or facial recognition throughout the EU. We want all the authorities to be transparent and accountable”, Dragoș Tudorache (Renew Europe, Romanian), the co-rapporteur on this issue, told the House.
A number of S&D members have also spoken out against the EPP. “Our EPP colleagues will try to explain how these artificial intelligence systems will make it possible to catch criminals, but one thing is very clear to me: those who want to hide will succeed and innocent people will pay the price”, warned Petar Vitanov (S&D, Bulgarian).
A “strong” European Parliament position on generative AI
In addition to remote biometric identification, the subject of ‘generative AI’, such as ChatGPT, also came up several times (see EUROPE 13167/6). On this point, the co-rapporteurs appeared confident. “There was a consensus within all the political groups on these rules, so our text is very strong”, Mr Tudorache dismissed.
MEPs also pointed out that a number of points still needed to be clarified during future inter-institutional negotiations (trilogues). For the dossier’s other co-rapporteur, Brando Benifei (S&D, Italian), particular attention should be paid to provisions for flagging online content generated by artificial intelligence systems, to enable users to identify them easily.
For others, such as German MEP Axel Voss (EPP), the trilogues will also be an opportunity to ensure that potential “overlaps with other legislation” are “identified and removed” in order to harmonise the rules within the EU and “avoid the same mistakes as with GDPR happening again with AI”.
As the European Parliament prepares to adopt its position for the trilogues, a large number of MEPs ultimately stressed the need for legislation that can evolve with developments in AI. “We should provide guarantees, principles and mechanisms that will remain in place for years to come. This is not a technical issue, it’s about the future of our democracies”, summed up Eva Maydell (EPP, Bulgarian). (Original version in French by Thomas Mangin)