+AI & Autonomous Technologies Impact Assessment

AI & Autonomous Technologies Impact Assessment

Description

Mechanisms exist to assess the impact(s) of proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) on individuals, groups, communities, organizations and society (e.g., Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA)).

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Basic AI impact assessment (documented impact on people, processes, decisions)
∙ AI governance program
∙ NIST AI RMF Map function

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Formal AI impact assessment for each deployed system
∙ AI governance program
∙ NIST AI RMF Map function

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ AI impact assessment process aligned to NIST AI RMF
∙ AI governance program
∙ Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) for higher-risk systems

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal AI impact assessment program with independent review for high-risk systems
∙ NIST AI RMF Map function
∙ Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) process
∙ EU AI Act conformity assessment requirements (if applicable)

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI impact assessment framework (NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act)
∙ Third-party conformity assessments for high-risk AI (EU AI Act Article 43)
∙ Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) program
∙ Board-level AI impact reporting

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control, risk assessments, etc.).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to assess the impact(s) of proposed AAT on individuals, groups, communities, organizations and society (e.g., Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA)).

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

1. Übersicht

1.1 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Related Regulations

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Related Regulations

Regulations
EULAW Article 27 Fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems

Article 27

Fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems

1.   Prior to deploying a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), with the exception of high-risk AI systems intended to be used in the area listed in point 2 of Annex III, deployers that are bodies governed by public law, or are private entities providing public services, and deployers of high-risk AI systems referred to in points 5 (b) and (c) of Annex III, shall perform an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights that the use of such system may produce. For that purpose, deployers shall perform an assessment consisting of:

(a)

a description of the deployer’s processes in which the high-risk AI system will be used in line with its intended purpose;

(b)

a description of the period of time within which, and the frequency with which, each high-risk AI system is intended to be used;

(c)

the categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected by its use in the specific context;

(d)

the specific risks of harm likely to have an impact on the categories of natural persons or groups of persons identified pursuant to point (c) of this paragraph, taking into account the information given by the provider pursuant to Article 13;

(e)

a description of the implementation of human oversight measures, according to the instructions for use;

(f)

the measures to be taken in the case of the materialisation of those risks, including the arrangements for internal governance and complaint mechanisms.

2.   The obligation laid down in paragraph 1 applies to the first use of the high-risk AI system. The deployer may, in similar cases, rely on previously conducted fundamental rights impact assessments or existing impact assessments carried out by provider. If, during the use of the high-risk AI system, the deployer considers that any of the elements listed in paragraph 1 has changed or is no longer up to date, the deployer shall take the necessary steps to update the information.

3.   Once the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article has been performed, the deployer shall notify the market surveillance authority of its results, submitting the filled-out template referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article as part of the notification. In the case referred to in Article 46(1), deployers may be exempt from that obligation to notify.

4.   If any of the obligations laid down in this Article is already met through the data protection impact assessment conducted pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, the fundamental rights impact assessment referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall complement that data protection impact assessment.

5.   The AI Office shall develop a template for a questionnaire, including through an automated tool, to facilitate deployers in complying with their obligations under this Article in a simplified manner.

Linked Issues

Issuelinks
is related to Semi-Annual
is related to relative Control Weighting = 08
is related to Process
is related to Identify
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 1 STRATEGIC
is related to SCRM Focus Tier 2 OPERATIONAL
blocks Inability to maintain individual accountability
blocks Improper assignment of privileged functions
blocks Privilege escalation
blocks Unauthorized access
blocks Lost, damaged or stolen asset(s)
blocks Loss of integrity through unauthorized changes
blocks Business interruption
blocks Data loss / corruption
blocks Reduction in productivity
blocks Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to technical attack
blocks Information loss / corruption or system compromise due to non‐technical attack
blocks Loss of revenue
blocks Cancelled contract
blocks Diminished competitive advantage
blocks Diminished reputation
blocks Fines and judgements
blocks Unmitigated vulnerabilities
blocks System compromise
blocks Inability to support business processes
blocks Incorrect controls scoping
blocks Lack of roles & responsibilities
blocks Inadequate internal practices
blocks Inadequate third-party practices
blocks Lack of oversight of internal controls
blocks Lack of oversight of third-party controls
blocks Illegal content or abusive action
blocks Inability to investigate / prosecute incidents
blocks Improper response to incidents
blocks Ineffective remediation actions
blocks Expense associated with managing a loss event
blocks Inability to maintain situational awareness
blocks Third-party cybersecurity exposure
blocks Third-party physical security exposure
blocks Third-party supply chain relationships, visibility and controls
blocks Third-party compliance / legal exposure
blocks Use of product / service
blocks Reliance on the third-party
  • Secure Controls Framework -

    The Secure Controls Framework® (SCF)

    "The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

    The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.

    Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.

    The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/ 

    Terms & Conditions

    The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Impressum Deutsch Englisch