As the Dutch privacy watchdog DPA announced on Wednesday, it was
concerned that software developers developing artificial intelligence (AI) might use personal data. To get more information about this, DPA sent a letter to Microsoft-backed OpenAI. The Dutch Data Protection Authority (Dutch DPA) imposed a fine of 30.5 million euros on Clearview AI and ordered that they be subject to a penalty of up to 5 million euros if they fail to comply.
As a result of the company's illegal database of billions of photographs of faces, including Dutch people, Clearview is an American company that offers facial recognition services. They have built an illegal database. According to their website, the Dutch DPA warns that Clearview's services are also prohibited. In light of the rapid growth of OpenAI's ChatGPT consumer app, governments, including those of the European Union, are considering how to regulate the technology.
There is a senior official from the Dutch privacy watchdog Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP), who told Euronews that the process of developing artificial intelligence standards will need to take place faster, in light of the AI Act. Introducing the EU AI Act, which is the first comprehensive AI law in the world. The regulation aims to address health and safety risks, as well as
fundamental human rights issues, as well as democracy, the rule of law, and environmental protection.
By adopting artificial intelligence systems, there is a strong possibility to benefit society, contribute to economic growth, enhance EU innovation and competitiveness as well as enhance EU innovation and global leadership. However, in some cases, the specific characteristics of certain AI systems may pose new risks relating to user safety, including physical safety and fundamental rights.
There have even been instances where some of these powerful AI models could pose systemic risks if they are widely used.
Since there is a lack of trust, this creates legal uncertainty and may result in a slower adoption of AI technologies by businesses, citizens, and public authorities due to legal uncertainties. Regulatory responses by national governments that are disparate could fragment the internal market.
To address these challenges, legislative action was required to ensure that both the benefits and risks of AI systems were adequately addressed to ensure that the internal market functioned well.
As for the standards, they are a way for companies to be reassured, and to demonstrate that they are complying with the regulations, but there is still a great deal of work to be done before they are available, and of course, time is running out,” said Sven Stevenson, who is the agency's director of coordination and supervision for
algorithms.
CEN-CELENEC and ETSI were tasked by the European Commission in May last year to compile the underlying standards for the industry, which are still being developed and this process continues to be carried out.
This data protection authority, which also oversees the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is likely to have the shared responsibility of checking the compliance of companies with the AI Act with other authorities, such as the Dutch regulator for digital infrastructure, the RDI, with which they will likely share this responsibility.
By August next year, all EU member states will have to select their AI regulatory agency, and it appears that in most EU countries, national data protection authorities will be an excellent choice. The AP has already dealt with cases in which companies' artificial intelligence tools were found to be in breach of GDPR in its capacity as a data regulator.
A US facial recognition company known as Clearview AI was fined
€30.5 million in September for building an illegal database of photos and unique biometric codes linked to Europeans in September, which included photos, unique biometric codes, and other information. The AI Act will be complementary to GDPR, since it focuses primarily on data processing, and would have an impact in the sense that it pertains to product safety in future cases.
Increasingly, the Dutch government is promoting the development of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, to promote the adoption of these technologies.
The deployment of such
technologies could have a major impact on public values like privacy, equality in the law, and autonomy. This became painfully evident when the scandal over childcare benefits in the Netherlands was brought to public attention in September 2018.
The scandal in question concerns thousands of parents who were falsely accused of fraud by the Dutch tax authorities because of discriminatory self-learning algorithms that were applied while attempting to regulate the distribution of childcare benefits while being faced with discriminatory self-learning algorithms.
It has been over a year since the Amsterdam scandal raised a great deal of controversy in the Netherlands, and there has been an increased emphasis on the supervision of new technologies, and in particular artificial intelligence, as a result, the Netherlands intentionally emphasizes and supports a "human-centred approach" to artificial intelligence.
Taking this approach means that AI should be designed and used in a manner that respects human rights as the basis of its purpose, design, and use. AI should not weaken or undermine public values and human rights but rather reinforce them rather than weaken them.
During the last few months, the Commission has established the so-called AI Pact, which provides workshops and joint commitments to assist businesses in getting ready for the upcoming AI Act. On a national level, the AP has also been organizing pilot projects and sandboxes with the Ministry of RDI and Economic Affairs so that companies can become familiar with the rules as they become more aware of them.
Further, the Dutch government has also published an algorithm register as of December 2022, which is a public record of algorithms used by the government, which is intended to ensure transparency and explain the results of algorithms, and the administration wants these algorithms to be legally checked for discrimination and arbitrariness.
