Suggestions
Wagner Martins Prado de Lacerda
Consultor Jurídico Adjunto | Direito Internacional, Direito Digital, Proteção de Dados
Wagner Martins Prado de Lacerda is a legal professional currently serving as an Assistant Legal Consultant (Consultor Jurídico Adjunto) at Banco do Brasil S.A., one of Brazil's largest financial institutions.1 He is also a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).1
Professional Experience and Expertise
Wagner has demonstrated expertise in various areas, including:
- Legal Consulting: His primary role at Banco do Brasil involves providing legal advice and guidance.1
- Privacy and Data Protection: As an IAPP member, he likely has significant knowledge in privacy-related matters.1
- AI and Technology: He has shown interest and expertise in artificial intelligence regulation, particularly in the context of international trade agreements and source code protection.2
- Leadership and Management: Wagner has been recognized for his leadership skills, having been named an "Emerging Leader" in Banco do Brasil's 2nd Digital Journey.5
Additional Roles and Interests
Beyond his primary position, Wagner is involved in several other professional activities:
- Mentorship: He serves as a mentor for Unibb, likely contributing to the development of younger professionals or students.5
- Public Speaking: Wagner has participated in panels discussing technology and banking services, showcasing his expertise in these areas.6
- Thought Leadership: He frequently shares insights on topics such as AI regulation, fundamental rights, innovation, and business through his LinkedIn posts.34
Wagner Martins Prado de Lacerda appears to be a multifaceted professional with a strong background in law, technology, and finance, actively contributing to discussions on the intersection of these fields in the context of his work at Banco do Brasil.
Highlights
O EU AI Act foi publicado nesta data no jornal oficial da União Européia e entra em vigor em 20 dias, com os prazos 06, 12 e 24 meses correndo a partir do 21o dia da publicação, sendo que a partir de 12 meses já se aplicam in full as penalidades previstas no EU AI Act.
O AI Act pretende servir como um uma estrutura legal uniforme para o desenvolvimento de Inteligência Artificial, sua colocação no mercado como serviço, regulando o uso dos sistemas de IA, com regras, a princípio, assimétricas para o risco que cada IA representa, co, proteção a direitos e garantias fundamentais dos cidadãos europeus, na tradição atual do Direito romano-germânico.
As for those who asked for a version of the article in English, there it is.
Draf Bill 2338/23 - Positive Points - Brief Comments
Two days ago, on June 7, 2024, Senator Eduardo Gomes, rapporteur of PL 2338/23 (Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Brazil) in the Temporary Internal Commission on Artificial Intelligence in Brazil (CTIA), published an opinion on the substitute for the mentioned Draft. Without prejudice to future considerations, I highlight some points that I consider incremental compared to previous draft bills:
- Trade and Industrial Secrets - Trade and industrial secrets are mentioned in articles 3, clause IV, 6, Sole Paragraph, 17, heading, 31, heading, 39, heading and in clauses VII, IX, X, and Sole Paragraph of article 44 of the Substitute. I believe that CTIA was more careful in drafting the law regarding innovation and business generation with the new technology, highlighting that, despite the duty to inform the affected person or group by providing transparency, explainability, and auditability, the technology and business secret of the AI system agent (developer, applicator, or supplier), far from being a detractor to the exercise of these rights, is a necessary element for the increase of business and technology;
- Human Supervision (article 4, clause XVIII) - Unlike the previous draft, human supervision considers the real risk involved in the AI system subject to the competent authority (yet to be defined) and sectoral authorities (in the Financial Sector, it would be the Central Bank of Brazil and the National Monetary Council, for example); the opinion correctly highlights that there are already several AIs in operation in the market, which present little or no risk, such as the AIs (restricted, limited) that are in smartphone applications, as well as other AIs widely used in the industry;
- Sandbox - It was already in the last draft, but it is worth mentioning, as the new proposal seems clearer to me. It allows the experimentation of new AIs before they are put into operation, in a controlled and regulated environment, preserving the rights of vulnerable groups and people who could be affected by the indiscriminate use of the AI system;
- “DPO” for AI, although the draft has a health disposition over the theme, this position, for beyond of taking care of interactions with affected groups or individuals, the competent authority, and the sectoral authority, has yet to be further detailed;
- Rights of affected individuals regardless of the risk level - the draft brought more details to inherent rights to all AI systems (article 5), and specific rights regarding high-risk AI systems (article 6), which highlights greater explainability, revisability, and contestability of decisions in the latter - despite the right to explainability, there is a healthy limitation on business trade and industrial developer´s secrets. Hope it helps. Daniela Fonseca PugginaMichael RaschidOtavio Soares
