• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

  • Articles
    • Public Policy
    • Privacy & Security
    • Human Rights
      • Ethics
      • JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion
    • Climate
    • Design
      • Emerging Technology
    • Application & Adoption
      • Health
      • Education
      • Government
        • Military
        • Public Works
      • Labour
    • Arts & Culture
      • Film & TV
      • Music
      • Pop Culture
      • Digital Art
  • Columns
    • AI Policy Corner
    • Recess
  • The AI Ethics Brief
  • AI Literacy
    • Research Summaries
    • AI Ethics Living Dictionary
    • Learning Community
  • The State of AI Ethics Report
    • Volume 7 (November 2025)
    • Volume 6 (February 2022)
    • Volume 5 (July 2021)
    • Volume 4 (April 2021)
    • Volume 3 (Jan 2021)
    • Volume 2 (Oct 2020)
    • Volume 1 (June 2020)
  • About
    • Our Contributions Policy
    • Our Open Access Policy
    • Contact
    • Donate

Response to the European Commission’s white paper on AI (2020)

June 17, 2020

Full paper in PDF formDownload

Authors: Abhishek Gupta, Camylle Lanteigne

In February 2020, the European Commission (EC) published a white paper entitled, On Artificial Intelligence – A European approach to excellence and trust. This paper outlines the EC’s policy options for the promotion and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in the European Union. We reviewed this paper and published a response addressing the EC’s plans to build an “ecosystem of excellence” and an “ecosystem of trust,” as well as the safety and liability implications of AI, the internet of things (IoT), and robotics.

Special thanks to the AI Ethics community who contributed their insights during our public consultations on this topic on May 27, 2020 and June 3, 2020.

Overview of our recommendations

  1. Focus efforts on the research and innovation community, member states, and the private sector, as well as those that should come first in Europe’s AI strategy.
  2. Create alignment between the major trading partners’ policies and the EU policies governing the development and use of AI.
  3. Analyze the gaps in the current ecosystem between theoretical frameworks and approaches to building trustworthy AI systems to create more actionable guidance that helps organizations implement these principles in practice.
  4. Focus on coordination and policy alignment, particularly in two areas: increasing the financing for AI start-ups and developing skills and adapting current training programs.
  5. Focus on mechanisms that promote private and secure sharing of data in the building up of the European data space, leveraging technical advances like federated learning, differential privacy, federated analytics, and homomorphic encryption.
  6. Create a network of existing AI research excellence centres to strengthen the research and innovation community, with a focus on producing quality scholarship work that takes into account a diverse array of values/ethics.
  7. Promote knowledge transfer and develop AI expertise for SMEs as well as support partnerships between SMEs and the other stakeholders through Digital Innovation Hubs.
  8. Add nuance to the discussion regarding the opacity of AI systems, so that there is a graduated approach to how these systems are governed and in which place there is a requirement for what degree of explainability and transparency.
  9. Create a process for individuals to appeal an AI system’s decision or output, such as a ‘right to negotiate,’ which is similar to the ‘right to object’ detailed in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
  10. Implement new rules and strengthen existing regulations to better address the concerns regarding AI systems.
  11. Ban the use of facial recognition technology, which could significantly lower risks regarding discriminatory outcomes and breaches in fundamental rights.
  12. Hold all AI systems (e.g. low-, medium-, and high-risk applications) to similar standards and compulsory requirements.
  13. Ensure that if biometric identification systems are used, they fulfill the purpose for which they are implemented while also being the best way of going about the task.
  14. Implement a voluntary labelling system for systems that are not considered high-risk, which should be further supported by strong economic incentives.
  15. Appoint individuals to the human oversight process who understand the AI systems well and are able to communicate any potential risks effectively with a variety of stakeholders so that they can take the appropriate action.
Full paper in PDF formDownload
Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

This image shows a large white, traditional, old building. The top half of the building represents the humanities (which is symbolised by the embedded text from classic literature which is faintly shown ontop the building). The bottom section of the building is embossed with mathematical formulas to represent the sciences. The middle layer of the image is heavily pixelated. On the steps at the front of the building there is a group of scholars, wearing formal suits and tie attire, who are standing around at the enternace talking and some of them are sitting on the steps. There are two stone, statute-like hands that are stretching the building apart from the left side. In the forefront of the image, there are 8 students - which can only be seen from the back. Their graduation gowns have bright blue hoods and they all look as though they are walking towards the old building which is in the background at a distance. There are a mix of students in the foreground.

Tech Futures: Co-opting Research and Education

Agentic AI systems and algorithmic accountability: a new era of e-commerce

ALL IN Conference 2025: Four Key Takeaways from Montreal

Beyond Dependency: The Hidden Risk of Social Comparison in Chatbot Companionship

AI Policy Corner: Restriction vs. Regulation: Comparing State Approaches to AI Mental Health Legislation

related posts

  • Ethics as a service: a pragmatic operationalisation of AI Ethics

    Ethics as a service: a pragmatic operationalisation of AI Ethics

  • Discursive framing and organizational venues: mechanisms of artificial intelligence policy adoption

    Discursive framing and organizational venues: mechanisms of artificial intelligence policy adoption

  • The Ethics of Emotion in AI Systems (Research Summary)

    The Ethics of Emotion in AI Systems (Research Summary)

  • The Nonexistent Moral Agency of Robots – A Lack of Intentionality and Free Will

    The Nonexistent Moral Agency of Robots – A Lack of Intentionality and Free Will

  • Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent

    Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent

  • Zoom Out and Observe: News Environment Perception for Fake News Detection

    Zoom Out and Observe: News Environment Perception for Fake News Detection

  • Participation and Division of Labor in User-Driven Algorithm Audits: How Do Everyday Users Work toge...

    Participation and Division of Labor in User-Driven Algorithm Audits: How Do Everyday Users Work toge...

  • Science Communications for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

    Science Communications for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

  • Achieving Fairness at No Utility Cost via Data Reweighing with Influence

    Achieving Fairness at No Utility Cost via Data Reweighing with Influence

  • Understanding Toxicity Triggers on Reddit in the Context of Singapore

    Understanding Toxicity Triggers on Reddit in the Context of Singapore

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer


Articles

Columns

AI Literacy

The State of AI Ethics Report


 

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.

Contact

Donate


  • © 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.