Renew Europe shadow rapporteur in the Internal Market Committee Svenja Hahn (FDP/RE) comments on her abstention in today's committee vote on the European AI Act as follows:
Improvements compared to the Commission proposal:
"The Commission proposal was impractical and would have massively harmed European companies. We were able to make improvements in key areas and save AI developers from the most problematic and expensive rules, which would have had no added value for consumer protection. For example, a simple and harmless AI system that is used in a high-risk area is not automatically considered high-risk anymore. Take a doctor's appointment system, for example. The definition of AI is now also based on that of the OECD, ensuring international compatibility. Regulatory sandboxes are to be established as an important tool, especially for innovative start-ups. It is particularly important that research and development are excluded from the scope of the AI Act and that clear responsibilities have been created for the various players along the AI value chain. In these and further areas, we managed to iron out some serious flaws in the Commission's proposal."
On innovation and civil rights:
"Too many ambiguities and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements remain. It will be easier for big tech companies, with large compliance departments, than for small and medium-sized enterprises to implement these complex and costly rules. The EU Commission must immediately issue appropriate guidelines to eliminate legal uncertainties. The implementation must be as straightforward as possible, to prevent that the AI Act becomes an obstacle for innovation. The parliament was unable to achieve a ban on real-time biometric surveillance against the member states, but we were able to ensure legal safeguards regarding the use of real-time biometric identification. I remain concerned about potential loopholes, such as a reference to terrorist threats or the numerous national security exemptions. I had also fought for stronger safeguards for the use of post remote biometric identification of individuals or predictive policing than is now foreseen. From now on, we must work to ensure that national governments do not misuse artificial intelligence for mass surveillance purposes."
On the vote in Parliament:
"In the negotiations over the past two years, we have been able to achieve important liberal successes regarding innovation and civil rights. Overall, I would have liked to see more openness towards innovation and an even stronger protection of civil rights. Taking all of this into account, I personally came to the conclusion to abstain in the parliamentary vote on the AI Act."
On the vote in the Council:
"I can understand that the German government supported the AI Act in Council in order to secure the successes achieved in terms of the rule of law and to create a harmonized legal framework for European companies. Implementation will be crucial. Therefore, I will continue working hard to ensure that the upcoming guidelines from the Commission clarify the ambiguities and provide our companies with clear orientation for implementing the law. I will also support efforts at national level to make the rules for the protection of civil rights even stricter than those provided for in the AI Act, especially with regard to remote biometric identification."