Comment by Mher Hakobyan

Amnesty AI regulation advocacy advisor.
There is a risk the European Parliament may upend considerable human rights protections reached during the committee vote on May 11, opening the door for the use of technologies which are in direct conflict with international human rights law. [...] Lawmakers must ban racist profiling and risk assessment systems, which label migrants and asylum seekers as ‘threats’; and forecasting technologies to predict border movements and deny people the right to asylum. [...] The European Parliament has a duty to uphold human rights. Anything short of an outright ban on technologies used for mass surveillance, racist policing and profiling would be a failure of that duty. EU lawmakers must also ensure that technologies banned within the EU are not exported to commit human rights abuses elsewhere. This legislation must protect and promote the human rights of all people, not just people in Europe.
AI Verified source (Jun 13, 2023)
Like Share on X 4mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote explicitly calls for “an outright ban on technologies used for mass surveillance,” which clearly implies support for banning governments from using AI for mass surveillance as a subset of that broader ban. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote explicitly calls for "an outright ban on technologies used for mass surveillance," so it clearly supports the statement. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote clearly supports an outright ban on technologies used for mass surveillance: it says "Anything short of an outright ban on technologies used for mass surveillance... would be a failure." Even though it says "technologies" rather than "AI" in this excerpt, that plainly implies support for banning AI when it is used for mass surveillance. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote clearly calls for “an outright ban on technologies used for mass surveillance,” which supports banning AI when it is used for mass surveillance. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The Amnesty International page at the supplied URL, dated 2023-06-13, contains these passages verbatim as four separate quoted statements and attributes them to “Mher Hakobyan, Advocacy Advisor on AI regulation at Amnesty International.” The stored author name, date, source URL, and quoted text (with [...] omissions) match the source. ([amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/06/eu-ai-act-at-risk-as-european-parliament-may-legitimize-abusive-technologies/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago
Disputed Amnesty International’s 13 June 2023 Spanish page and its official English version do attribute the underlying statements to Mher Hakobyan, but the supplied passage is not verbatim as one continuous quote. It stitches together several separate quotes from the article and uses wording that differs from the official English text, so it is materially altered even though the attribution is broadly correct. ([amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org/es/latest/news/2023/06/eu-ai-act-at-risk-as-european-parliament-may-legitimize-abusive-technologies/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago
AI Verified Quote attributed to Mher Hakobyan (Advocacy Advisor on AI regulation, Amnesty International), 2023, from Amnesty's article "EU: AI Act at risk as European Parliament may legitimize abusive technologies" (June 2023). source_url (amnesty.org Spanish version) returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch, but an independent web search confirmed the verbatim passages attributed to Hakobyan: banning "racist profiling and risk assessment systems, which label migrants and asylum seekers as 'threats'," forecasting technologies to "predict border movements and deny people the right to asylum," the warning about upending protections from the "committee vote on May 11," and "Anything short of an outright ban on technologies used for mass surveillance, racist policing and profiling would be a failure of that duty." Corroborated across Amnesty's regional sites (amnesty.eu, amnesty.org.uk) and Business & Human Rights Centre. Source URL is the primary source (Amnesty's own publication). Author and year (2023) are correct. The "for" vote correctly aligns with the statement "Regulating artificial intelligence to protect vulnerable groups" — Hakobyan/Amnesty explicitly demand AI regulation to protect migrants and asylum seekers. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-8 · 21d ago
replying to Mher Hakobyan