# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CHAPTER II

Article 5

1. The following AI practices shall be prohibited:

the placing on the market, the putting into service or the use of AI systems for the evaluation or classification of natural persons or groups of persons over a certain period of time based on their social behaviour or known, inferred or predicted personal or personality characteristics, with the social score leading to either or both of the following:

the use of 'real-time' remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement, unless and in so far as such use is strictly necessary for one of the following objectives:

Point (h) of the first subparagraph is without prejudice to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for the processing of biometric data for purposes other than law enforcement.

2. The use of 'real-time' remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (h), shall be deployed for the purposes set out in that point only to confirm the identity of the specifically targeted individual, and it shall take into account the following elements:

In addition, the use of 'real-time' remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (h), of this Article shall comply with necessary and proportionate safeguards and conditions in relation to the use in accordance with the national law authorising the use thereof, in particular as regards the temporal, geographic and personal limitations. The use of the 'real-time' remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces shall be authorised only if the law enforcement authority has completed a fundamental rights impact assessment as provided for in Article 27 and has registered the system in the EU database according to Article 49. However, in duly justified cases of urgency, the use of such systems may be commenced without the registration in the EU database, provided that such registration is completed without undue delay.

3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (h) and paragraph 2, each use for the purposes of law enforcement of a 'real-time' remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces shall be subject to a prior authorisation granted by a judicial authority or an independent administrative authority whose decision is binding of the Member State in which the use is to take place, issued upon a reasoned request and in accordance with the detailed rules of national law referred to in paragraph 5. However, in a duly justified situation of urgency, the use of such system may be commenced without an authorisation provided that such authorisation is requested without undue delay, at the latest within 24 hours. If such authorisation is rejected, the use shall be stopped with immediate effect and all the data, as well as the results and outputs of that use shall be immediately discarded and deleted.

The competent judicial authority or an independent administrative authority whose decision is binding shall grant the authorisation only where it is satisfied, on the basis of objective evidence or clear indications presented to it, that the use of the 'real-time' remote biometric identification system concerned is necessary for, and proportionate to, achieving one of the objectives specified in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (h), as identified in the request and, in particular, remains limited to what is strictly necessary concerning the period of time as well as the geographic and personal scope. In deciding on the request, that authority shall take into account the elements referred to in paragraph 2. No decision that produces an adverse legal effect on a person may be taken based solely on the output of the 'real-time' remote biometric identification system.

4. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, each use of a 'real-time' remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement purposes shall be notified to the relevant market surveillance authority and the national data protection authority in accordance with the national rules referred to in paragraph 5. The notification shall, as a minimum, contain the information specified under paragraph 6 and shall not include sensitive operational data.

5. A Member State may decide to provide for the possibility to fully or partially authorise the use of 'real-time' remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement within the limits and under the conditions listed in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (h), and paragraphs 2 and 3. Member States concerned shall lay down in their national law the necessary detailed rules for the request, issuance and exercise of, as well as supervision and reporting relating to, the authorisations referred to in paragraph 3. Those rules shall also specify in respect of which of the objectives listed in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (h), including which of the criminal offences referred to in point (h)(iii) thereof, the competent authorities may be authorised to use those systems for the purposes of law enforcement. Member States shall notify those rules to the Commission at the latest 30 days following the adoption thereof. Member States may introduce, in accordance with Union law, more restrictive laws on the use of remote biometric identification systems.

6. National market surveillance authorities and the national data protection authorities of Member States that have been notified of the use of 'real-time' remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement purposes pursuant to paragraph 4 shall submit to the Commission annual reports on such use. For that purpose, the Commission shall provide Member States and national market surveillance and data protection authorities with a template, including information on the number of the decisions taken by competent judicial authorities or an independent administrative authority whose decision is binding upon requests for authorisations in accordance with paragraph 3 and their result.

7. The Commission shall publish annual reports on the use of real-time remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement purposes, based on aggregated data in Member States on the basis of the annual reports referred to in paragraph 6. Those annual reports shall not include sensitive operational data of the related law enforcement activities.

8. This Article shall not affect the prohibitions that apply where an AI practice infringes other Union law.

# data[].attributes.headline
EC: Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence (AI) practices

# data[].attributes.subject
EC: Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence (AI) practices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commission publishes the Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence (AI) practices, as defined by the AI Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These guidelines provide an overview of AI practices that are deemed unacceptable due to their potential risks to European values and fundamental rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
EC: Guidelines on the definition of an artificial intelligence system established by AI Act

# data[].attributes.subject
EC: Guidelines on the definition of an artificial intelligence system established by AI Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By issuing guidelines on the AI system definition, the Commission aims to assist providers and other relevant persons in determining whether a software system constitutes an AI system to facilitate the effective application of the rules.

The guidelines on the AI system definition are not binding. They are designed to evolve over time and will be updated as necessary, in particular in light of practical experiences, new questions and use cases that arise.

The Commission has published these guidelines in addition to the Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence (AI) practices, as defined by the AI Act.

The AI Act, which aims to promote innovation while ensuring high levels of health, safety, and fundamental rights protection, classifies AI systems into different risk categories, including prohibited, high-risk, and those subject to transparency obligations.

As of Sunday, 2 February, the first rules under the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) have started to apply. These include the AI system definition, AI literacy, and a very limited number of prohibited AI use cases that pose unacceptable risks in the EU, as outlined in the AI Act.
Please note that the Commission has approved the draft guidelines, but not yet formally adopted them.
Downloads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Commission publishes guidelines on AI system definition to facilitate the first AI Act's rules application

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The guidelines on the AI system definition explain the practical application of the legal concept, as anchored in the AI Act.

# data[].attributes.headline
EDPB opinion on AI models: GDPR principles support responsible AI

# data[].attributes.subject
EDPB opinion on AI models: GDPR principles support responsible AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EDPB opinion on AI models: GDPR principles support responsible AI | European Data Protection Board

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brussels, 18 December - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has adopted an opinion* on the use of personal data for the development and deployment of AI models. This opinion looks at 1) when and how AI models can be considered anonymous, 2) whether and how legitimate interest can be used as a legal basis for developing or using AI models, and 3) what happens if an AI model is developed using personal data that was processed unlawfully. It also considers the use of first and third party data.

# data[].attributes.headline
EC: EU model contractual AI clauses to pilot in procurements of AI

# data[].attributes.subject
EC: EU model contractual AI clauses to pilot in procurements of AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These standard EU model contractual AI clauses have been drafted in assignment of this community and have been peer-reviewed by experts. They are the updated version of the Model Clauses that we have shared in April this year. This community has made these clauses available for public organisations wishing to procure an AI system developed by an external supplier. Considering that the proposed AI Act is still under negotiations, public organisations that decide to use these conditions may do that on a voluntary basis assessing on a case-by-case basis whether the various sections of these standard contractual clauses are sufficient and proportionate for procuring a particular AI system. We invite those organisation to read them carefully and customize them to the specific context of the organisation and the specific procurement.

The High Risk version of the EU model contractual AI clauses targets in particular AI systems classified as 'high-risk' within the meaning of Article 6 and listed in one of the areas covered by Annexes II and III of the proposed AI Act.

For non-high risk AI the application of these requirements is not mandatory under the AI Act, but recommended to improve trustworthiness of AI applications procured by public organisations. The Non-High Risk version of the EU model contractual AI clauses targets Non-High Risk AI systems.

Where appropriate and justified depending on the impact of the system on the individuals and the society, public organisations may also extend the application of these clauses, either the High-Risk version or the Non-High Risk Version, to other algorithmic systems that may not be necessarily qualified as 'AI' to cover in addition simpler software rule-based systems, considering that their use in the public sector may also require in certain cases increased accountability, control and transparency.

The EU model contractual AI clauses contain provisions specific to AI systems and on matters covered by the proposed AI Act, thus excluding other obligations or requirements that may arise under relevant applicable legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation. Furthermore, these EU model contractual AI clauses do not comprise a full contractual arrangement. They need to be customized to each specific contractual context. For example, EU model contractual AI clauses do not contain any conditions concerning intellectual property, acceptance, payment, delivery times, applicable law or liability. The EU model contractual AI clauses are drafted in such a way that they can be attached as a schedule to an agreement in which such matters have already been laid down.

The EU model contractual AI clauses are translated in all EU languages. The translations are accessible via the link "Other languages" below. Secondly an Explanatory Note with more specific clarification on how to understand the EU model contractual AI clauses and where to report the use cases will follow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EU model contractual AI clauses to pilot in procurements of AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These EU model contractual AI clauses are made available by this community for further piloting after a peer review by experts. These clauses support EU public buyers in procuring AI-enabled solutions that are trustworthy, fair and secure.

# data[].attributes.headline
EC: High-level expert group on artificial intelligence

# data[].attributes.subject
EC: High-level expert group on artificial intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Deliverables

During the first year of its mandate, the high-level expert group on artificial intelligence (AI HLEG) worked on two main deliverables:

The document puts forward a human-centric approach on AI and list 7 key requirements that AI systems should meet in order to be trustworthy.

Building on its first deliverable, the group put forward 33 recommendations to guide trustworthy AI towards sustainability, growth, competitiveness, and inclusion. At the same time, the recommendations will empower, benefit and protect European citizens.

The results of the work of the AI HLEG were presented at the first European AI Assembly in June 2019. Following the Assembly, the European Commission extended the group's mandate for one more year. This extended mandate allowed the group to increase its work and pilot the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI . The mandate of the AI HLEG ended in July 2020 with the presentation of two more deliverables:

A practical tool that translates the Ethics Guidelines into an accessible and dynamic self-assessment checklist. The checklist can be used by developers and deployers of AI who want to implement the key requirements. This new list is available as a prototype web based tool and in PDF format.

The document explores the possible implementation of the recommendations, previously published by the group, in three specific areas of application: Public Sector, Healthcare and Manufacturing & the Internet of Things.

AI HLEG and the European AI Alliance

The overall work of the AI HLEG has been central to the development of the Commission's approach to Artificial Intelligence. The concept of trustworthiness and the 7 key requirements, introduced by the Ethics Guidelines are guiding the upcoming legislative steps in AI.

The group's recommendations have served as resources for policymaking initiatives taken by the Commission and its Member States. Among those initiatives, there was the Communication on Building Trust in Human Centric Artificial Intelligence, the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: a European approach to excellence and trust and the updated Coordinated plan on AI.

The AI HLEG has worked closely with the European community of AI stakeholders through the AI Alliance. The European AI Alliance is an online forum with over 4000 members representing academia, business and industry, civil society, EU citizens and policymakers.

The members of the AI Alliance offered detailed feedback for the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Moreover, a set of materials such as policy documents, academic papers and discussions published on the forum, helped define the other deliverables of the AI HLEG.

In the first European AI Alliance Assembly, 500 members of the forum met in a live event that engaged the community into a direct feedback provision to the European Commission's policymaking process on AI. Although the AI HLEG ended its mandate in July 2020, the community of the AI Alliance continued its activity.

In October 2020 over 1900 participants joined online the second European AI Alliance Assembly to discuss the main findings of the Public Consultation on the Commission's White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and future perspectives in building a European approach of excellence and trust in AI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High-level expert group on artificial intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The European Commission appointed a group of experts to provide advice on its artificial intelligence strategy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI) for self-assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI) for self-assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following a piloting process where over 350 stakeholders participated, an earlier prototype of the list was revised and translated into a tool to support AI developers and deployers in developing Trustworthy AI.

The tool supports the actionability the key requirements outlined by the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI), presented by the High-Level Expert Group on AI (AI HLEG) presented to the European Commission, in April 2019. The Ethics Guidelines introduced the concept of Trustworthy AI, based on seven key requirements:

1. human agency and oversight

2. technical robustness and safety

3. privacy and data governance

4. transparency

5. diversity, non-discrimination and fairness

6. environmental and societal well-being and

7. accountability

Through the Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI), AI principles are translated into an accessible and dynamic checklist that guides developers and deployers of AI in implementing such principles in practice. ALTAI will help to ensure that users benefit from AI without being exposed to unnecessary risks by indicating a set of concrete steps for self-assessment.
Download the Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI) (.pdf)
The ALTAI is also available in a web-based tool version.
More on the ALTAI web-based tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI) for self-assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the 17 of July 2020, the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG) presented their final Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to the Guidelines, trustworthy AI should be:

(1) lawful - respecting all applicable laws and regulations

(2) ethical - respecting ethical principles and values

(3) robust - both from a technical perspective while taking into account its social environment

Download the Guidelines in your language below:

The Guidelines put forward a set of 7 key requirements that AI systems should meet in order to be deemed trustworthy. A specific assessment list aims to help verify the application of each of the key requirements:

Human agency and oversight: AI systems should empower human beings, allowing them to make informed decisions and fostering their fundamental rights. At the same time, proper oversight mechanisms need to be ensured, which can be achieved through human-in-the-loop, human-on-the-loop, and human-in-command approaches

Technical Robustness and safety: AI systems need to be resilient and secure. They need to be safe, ensuring a fall back plan in case something goes wrong, as well as being accurate, reliable and reproducible. That is the only way to ensure that also unintentional harm can be minimized and prevented.

Privacy and data governance: besides ensuring full respect for privacy and data protection, adequate data governance mechanisms must also be ensured, taking into account the quality and integrity of the data, and ensuring legitimised access to data.

Transparency: the data, system and AI business models should be transparent. Traceability mechanisms can help achieving this. Moreover, AI systems and their decisions should be explained in a manner adapted to the stakeholder concerned. Humans need to be aware that they are interacting with an AI system, and must be informed of the system's capabilities and limitations.

Diversity, non-discrimination and fairness: Unfair bias must be avoided, as it could could have multiple negative implications, from the marginalization of vulnerable groups, to the exacerbation of prejudice and discrimination. Fostering diversity, AI systems should be accessible to all, regardless of any disability, and involve relevant stakeholders throughout their entire life circle.

Societal and environmental well-being: AI systems should benefit all human beings, including future generations. It must hence be ensured that they are sustainable and environmentally friendly. Moreover, they should take into account the environment, including other living beings, and their social and societal impact should be carefully considered.

Accountability: Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes. Auditability, which enables the assessment of algorithms, data and design processes plays a key role therein, especially in critical applications. Moreover, adequate an accessible redress should be ensured.

The AI HLEG has also prepared a document which elaborates on a Definition of Artificial Intelligence used for the purpose of the Guidelines.

Download the Definition of AI in your language below:

Piloting Process

The document also provides an assessment list that operationalises the key requirements and offers guidance to implement them in practice. Starting from the 26th of June, this assessment list underwent a piloting process, to which all stakeholders were invited to test the assessment list and provide practical feedback on how it can be improved.

Feedback was received through different tracks:

An open survey or "quantitative analysis" sent to all those who registered to the piloting

In-depth interviews with a number of representative organisations to gather more detailed feedback for different sectors

Continuous possibility to upload feedback and best practices through the European AI Alliance

The piloting phase closed on 1 December 2019

Based on the feedback received, the AI HLEG presented the final Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI) in July 2020. ALTAI is practical tool that translates the Ethics Guidelines into an accessible and dynamic (self-assessment) checklist. The checklist can be used by developers and deployers of AI who want to implement the key requirements in practice. This new list is available as a prototype web based tool and in PDF format.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On 8 April 2019, the High-Level Expert Group on AI presented Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. This followed the publication of the guidelines' first draft in December 2018 on which more than 500 comments were received through an open consultation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Documents addressed to the European Commission or National Authorities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The EU lawmakers spearheading the AI law circulated a possible compromise on the dispositions related to law enforcement, one of the most sensitive areas of the file.
The AI Act is a legislative proposal to regulate Artificial Intelligence based on its potential to harm people and their fundamental rights. The bill is currently being negotiated between the EU Parliament, Council and Commission in so-called trilogues.

On Tuesday (21 November), the MEPs involved in the law-making process are meeting to discuss the three main parts of the file that are still open: obligations for General Purpose AI, governance and law enforcement.

Ahead of the meeting, the European Parliament's co-rapporteurs Dragoș Tudorache and Brando Benifei circulated a compromise text, seen by Euractiv, on the sensitive law enforcement chapter.

EU countries have been pushing to give their police forces more room for manoeuvre, whilst most MEPs have pushed back against it in the name of fundamental rights protection.

National security exemption

France has been pushing for a broad national security exemption within the EU Council. According to the co-rapporteurs' proposal, there is unanimity across political groups for a more restrictive wording.

"This Regulation shall not apply to AI systems developed or used exclusively for military purposes. This Regulation is without prejudice to the competences of the Member States with regard to their activities concerning military, defence, or national security," reads the text.

Remote Biometric Identification

As Euractiv previously reported, the European Parliament seems available to drop its ban on using remote biometric identification (RBI) systems in publicly accessible spaces in favour of narrow law enforcement exceptions.

In their text, the leading MEPs cancelled the reference to 'real-time', meaning the exceptions would also apply to ex-post usage. The exceptions include the targeted search for specific victims of a pre-determined list of serious crimes and localising a suspect of these crimes.

The usage should "only be deployed to confirm the specifically targeted individual's identity, it shall not include automated matching of real time or ex-post video footage with existing databases," reads the text.

Moreover, the application must be limited to what is strictly necessary regarding time, geographical and personal scope and subject to prior judicial authorisation. The lawmakers removed the possibility that the authorisation might come from an administrative authority.

The co-rapporteurs removed the exception that would have allowed law enforcement authorities that have not yet completed a fundamental rights impact assessment from still using the RBI systems under justified emergencies.

EU countries must pass national legislation regulating the use of RBI in public spaces and inform the Commission within 30 days of the adoption. A supervisory authority would have to be notified of each use of the technology.

Supervisory authorities should provide the Commission with annual reports. In turn, the EU executive will publish annual reports with aggregate data and exercise "systemic oversight and control" on RBI usage.

Additional bans

In exchange for dropping the ban on RBI systems, MEPs are set to obtain the extension of the list of prohibited AI applications.

The EU Parliament is pushing for forbidding biometric categorisation systems that infer people's sensitive information, like political orientation. The office of Brando Benifei proposed a new text meant to keep the ban while making commercial services out of the scope.

Predictive policing is still an open discussion, as a previous iteration of the text kept it as a high-risk use case. According to the note, most political groups rejected that compromise and insisted on the European Parliament's mandate to ban this application.

Concerning emotion recognition, the Council has so far shown openness to accept a ban in the areas of workplace and education. Still, the leading MEPs insist on including law enforcement and migration in exchange for flexibility in other file parts.

High-risk use cases

The AI Act includes a list of use cases considered at significant risk to cause harm to people's safety and fundamental rights. The co-rapporteurs suggest broadening the category of RBI to cover all uses not covered under the ban, including privately accessible spaces.

Similarly, the two lawmakers want all applications of biometric categorisation and emotion recognition technologies not covered under the bans to be deemed high-risk.

The MEPs agree to have AI-powered polygraphs and similar tools in the high-risk list rather than prohibiting them, but only if used directly by police forces and per EU and national law.

Law enforcement and migration uses of AI systems like crime analytics, deep fake detection, travel document verification and migration trends predictions were removed. Any use of AI for border control would be considered high-risk except for the verification of travel documents.

Law enforcement exemptions

European governments have been asking for a law enforcement carve-out to the four-eyes principles, which requires a decision based on a high-risk system to be verified by at least two people. On this point, the co-rapporteurs are pushing back against most political groups.

Similarly, most lawmakers oppose exempting law enforcement authorities from the obligation to register their high-risk AI system to the EU database. A possible compromise could be to register them in a non-public section of the database, but some MEPs insist on having at least some information publicly available.

The derogation for putting into service an AI system that did not undergo the conformity assessment might be accepted in exchange for concessions elsewhere, with the caveat that authorisation must be requested within 48 hours.
[Edited by Nathalie Weatherald]
Read more with EURACTIV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leading MEPs make counter-proposal on AI rulebook's law enforcement chapter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The EU lawmakers spearheading the AI law circulated a possible compromise on the dispositions related to law enforcement, one of the most sensitive areas of the file.

# data[].attributes.headline
AEPD (Spain): Artificial Intelligence and automated decisions

# data[].attributes.subject
AEPD (Spain): Artificial Intelligence and automated decisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Breaking news regarding accountability

Basic tools for accountability compliance

The AEPD has developed tools and help material to assist with compliance with general data protection regulation for small businesses, entrepreneurs and developers, and other types of controllers. This section lists those tools that are common to all types of processing. In the section "Guides, reports and technical notes" you can find specific material that extends their scope to specific treatments, technologies or controllers.

In any case, controllers and processors should not forget to verify that they comply with all the requirements and obligations that guarantee compliance with GDPR and national rules on data protection.

Risk management and Impact Assessment regarding Data Protection

The following resources support the obligation to carry out a risk analysis of personal data processing, and in case that is needed, the obligation to carry out a data protection impact assessment:

There are more resources about risk management and DPIA in the main section: Risk management

Data Protection by Design and by Default

The following resources support the obligation to take into account, from the initial stages of definition and analysis of the processing, appropriate technical and organisational measures for ensuring, by design and by default, data protection principles implementation:

Personal Data Breach Management

The following resources support the obligation to implement incident recording and notification mechanisms in order to properly manage any possible breach.

Application sectors and technologies

In order to respond to sectors of activity or technologies that incorporate singularities in data processing, referenced is made below to resources of interest, both national and international, that can serve as support to comply with the principle of accountability. At this time, published materials and resources cover the following areas:

Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Tools

Artificial Intelligence and automated decisions

Due to the big use of the artificial intelligence in biometrics, in the following link you can find some very interesting information about Biometrics

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

Legal reports and communiqués

International recommendations and guidelines

Biometrics

Due to the big use of the artificial intelligence in biometrics, in the following link you can find some very interesting information about Artificial Intelligence and automated decisions

Guidelines and technical surveys

Post

International recommendations and guidelines

Blockchain

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

Video

International recommendations and guidelines

Data protection by design and by default

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Data spaces, Cloud computing and Big data

Guidelines and technical surveys

Post

International recommendations and guidelines

Event

Digital identity

Posts

Emergency situations

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Encryption and privacy

Guidelines and technical surveys

Tools

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Governance and data protection policies

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Internet and mobile systems

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Internet of Things (IoT) and Connected Systems

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Neurodata

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

Personal data breach and security

Guidelines and technical surveys

Tools

Templates and forms

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Protection of Minors on the Internet

Guidelines and technical surveys

Post

Videos

International recommendations and guidelines

Public Administrations

Guidelines and technical surveys

Templates and forms

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

Risk management

Guidelines and technical surveys

Tools

Templates and forms

International recommendations and guidelines

Telecommuting

Guidelines and technical surveys

Posts

International recommendations and guidelines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Breaking news regarding accountabilityeIDAS2, the EUDI wallet and the GDPR (I) [jan 2025]