Activities of Kaja KALLAS related to 2015/2103(INL)
Plenary speeches (2)
Civil Law Rules on Robotics (debate)
Civil Law Rules on Robotics (debate)
Amendments (55)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas now that humankind stands on the threshold of an era when ever more sophisticated robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence ("AI") seem poised to unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched, it is vitally important for the legislature to consider all its implicationthe growing development and use of artificial intelligence applications is increasingly reducing the marginal cost of producing and distributing goods and services, raising the need to comprehensively assess the implications of these developments on the EU's values and fundamental rights as well as on fundamental principles related to the rule of law and ethics;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas machine learning offers enormous economic and innovative benefits for society by vastly improving the ability to analyse data, while also raising challenges to ensure non- discrimination, due process, transparency and understandability in decision-making processes;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas similarly, assessments of economic shifts and the impact on employment as a result of robotics and machine learning need to be assessed;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence; widespread use of robots might not automatically lead to job replacement, but lower skilled jobs in labour-intensive sectors are likely to be more vulnerable to automation; whereas this trend could bring production processes back to the EU; whereas research has demonstrated that employment grows significantly faster in occupations that use computers more; whereas the automation of jobs has the potential to liberate people from manual monotone labour allowing them to shift direction towards more creative and meaningful tasks; whereas automation requires governments to invest in education and other reforms in order to improve reallocations in the types of skills that the workers of tomorrow will need;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that harmonised standardisation for robotics is necessary and should be part of the EU's standardisation priorities; calls on the Commission to engage more actively with international standardisation bodies and improve cooperation with international partners to work further on improving standards in this field;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that robots developed for both manufacturing and individual use should be subject to product safety and consumer protection rules; believes that issues of data protection, liability and cybersecurity should be addressed in any policy on robotics; highlights the importance of privacy and security by design in the development of robots;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas many basic questions of dthe General Data pProtection have already become the subject of consideration in the general contexts of the internet and e-commerceRegulation sets out a legal framework to protect personal data, but whereas further aspects of data ownership, data access, and the protection of personal data and privacy might still need to be addressed, given that privacy concerns might still arise from applications and appliances will communicateing with each other and with databases without humans intervening or possibly without their even being aware of what is going ontion ;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises that robotics and AI technologies are increasingly used in autonomous vehicles; notes that some Member States are already enacting or considering legislation in this area in particular; stresses that overregulation in robotics and robotic systems should be avoided, and calls instead for future-proof minimum harmonisation, especially in relation to autonomous vehicles, in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the 'soft impacts' on human dignityhuman dignity is complex to assess and may be difficult to estimate, but will still need to be considered if and when robots replace human care and companionship, and whereas questions of human dignity also can arise in the context of 'repairing' or enhancing human beingsarefully considered within the context of human care and companionship, taking into account where robots could enhance capabilities and human dignity and where robots could have a negative impact, by impending for instance access of robot users to essential capabilities ;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas once technologies emerge and mature, European industry could benefit from a coherent approach to regulation at European level, providing predictable and sufficiently clear conditions under which enterprises could develop applications and plan their business models on a European scale while ensuring that the EU and its Member States maintain control over the regulatory standards to be set, so as not to be forced to adopt and live with standards set by others, that is to say the third states which are also at the forefront of the development of robotics and AI;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas, nevertheless, a series of rules, governing in particular liability and ethics and, transparency and accountability, are useful, reflecting the intrinsically European and universal humanistic values that characterise Europe's contribution to society, are necessary;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas a gradualist, pragmatic and cautious approach, of the type advocated by Jean Monnet,2 should be adopted for Europe; with regard to any future initiatives on robotics and AI so as to ensure that we do not stifle innovation ; . __________________ 2 the Schuman Declaration (1950: "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas it is appropriate, in view of the stage reached in the development of robotics and AI, to start with civil liability issues and to consider whether a strict liability approach based on who is best placed to insure is not the best starting point;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas, thanks to the impressive technological advances of the last decade, not only are today's robots able to perform activities which used to be typically and exclusively human, but the development of autonomous and cognitive features – e.g. the ability to learn from experience and take independent decisions – has made them more and more similar to agents that interact with their environment and are able to alter it significantly; whereas, in such a context, the legal responsibility arising from a robot’s harmful action becomes a crucialn important issue;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas the more autonomous robots are, the less they can be considered simple tools in the hands of other actors (such as the manufacturer, the owner, the user, etc.); whereas this, in turn, makes will require assessing whether the ordinary rules on liability inare sufficient and calls for new rules which focus on how a machine can be held – partly or entirely – responsible for its acts or omissionswhether more complex rules identifying all possible actors in the chain of responsibility should be established ; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgentmight become necessary to addrssess the fundamental question of whether robots should possess a legal statuswhether a new legal category should be created for fully autonomous robots ;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas under the current legal framework robots cannot be held liable per se for acts or omissions that cause damage to third parties; whereas the existing rules on liability cover cases where the cause of the robot’s act or omission can be traced back to a specific human agent such as the manufacturer, the owner or the user and where that agent could have foreseen and avoided the robot’s harmful behaviour; whereas, in addition, manufacturers, owners or users could be held strictly liable for acts or omissions of a robot if, for example, the robot were categorised as a dangerous object or if it fell within product liability rules;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that a system of registration of advanced robots shcould be introduced where relevant and necessary for specific subcategories of robots, and calls on the Commission to establish criteria for the classification of robots with a view to identifying the robots that would need to be registered;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that many robotic applications are still in an experimental phase; welcomes the fact that more and more research projects are being funded with national and European money as this is essential that the European Union together with Member states, through public funding, remains a leader in research in robotics and AI; calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen financial instruments for research projects in robotics and ICT and to implement in their research policies the principles of open science and open innovation; emphasises that sufficient resources need to be devoted to the search for solutions to the social and ethical challenges that the technological development and its applications raise;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Asks the Commission to foster research programmes that include a mechanism for short-term verification of the outcomes in order to understand what real risks and opportunities are associated withmprove cooperation and partnerships between basic research and applied research in order to improve and accelerate the dissemination of these technologies; calls on the Commission to combine all its effort in order to guarantee a smoother transition for these technologies from research to commercialisation on the market;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that the guiding ethical framework should be based on the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and autonomy, as well as on the principles enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as human dignity and human rights, equality, justice and equity, non-discrimination and non- stigmatisation, transparency, autonomy and individual responsibility, informed consent, privacy and social responsibility, and on existing ethical practices and codes;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that there are no legal provisions that specifically apply to robotics, but that existing legal regimes and doctrines can be readily applied to robotics while some aspects appear to need specific consideration; calls on the Commission to come forward with a balanced approach to intellectual property rights when applied to hardware and software standards, and codes that protect innovation and at the same time foster innovation; calls on the Commission to elaborate criteria for an ‘own intellectual creation’ for cstresses the importance for the Commission to support open innovation through collaborative research, open standards and open data to avoid lock-in in propyrightable works produced by computers or robotsetary systems and maximize the benefits of innovation in Europe ;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in the development of any EU policy on robotics, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to foster the development of standards for the concepts of privacy by design and privacy by default, informed consent and end-to-end encryption;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to continue to work on the international harmonisation of technical standards, in particular together with the European Standardisation Organisations and the International Standardisation Organisation, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market and to meet consumers’ concerns; asks the Commission to analyse existing European legislation with a view to checking the need for adaption in light of the development of robotics and artificial intelligence; stresses the importance of open standards, including open source software and open source hardware to maximize the value of innovation and to ensure that robots can communicate with each other;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises that testing robots in real-life scenarios is essential for the identification and assessment of the risks they might entail, as well as of their technological development beyond a pure experimental laboratory phase; underlines, in this regard, that testing of robots in real- life scenarios, in particular in cities and on roads, raises numerous problems and requires an effective monitoring mechanism; calls on the Commission to draw up uniform criteria across all Member States which individual Member States should use in order to identify a, encounters numerous barriers that slow down the development of these testing phases and requireas where experiments with robots are permittedan effective monitoring mechanism;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 10
Subheading 10
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that getting more young women interested in a digital career and placing more women in digital jobs would benefit the digital industry, women themselves and Europe's economy; calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch initiatives in order to support women in ICT and to boost their e-skills;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to start monitoring job trends more closely, with a special focus on the creation and, displacement or loss of jobs in the different fields/areas of qualification, in order to know in which fields jobs are being created and those in which jobs are being destroyed as a result of the increased use of robots; stresses that the growth in robotics requires member states to develop more flexible training and education systems to ensure skill strategies match the needs of the robots economy;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Bearing in mind the effects that the development and deployment of robotics and AI might have on employment and, consequently, on the viability of the social security systems of the Member States, consideration should be given to the possible need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions; takes the view that in the light of the possible effects on the labour market of robotics and AI a general basic income should be seriously considered, and invites all Member States to do soneed to reform the labour market and social protection systems, in light of the employment trends, so that they are fit for the age of robots ;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Asks the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a legislative instrument on legal questions related to the development of robotics and artificial intelligence foreseeable in the next 10-15 years, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex hereto; further calls on the Commission, once technological developments allow the possibility for robots whose degree of autonomy is higher than what is reasonably predictable at present to be developed, to propose an update of the relevant legislation in due timeonce the maturity of technological development of autonomous robots require for the regulatory framework to be adapted, combined with non -legislative instruments such as guidelines and codes of conduct as referred to in recommendations set out in the annex hereto;
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Considers that, in principle, once the ultimately responsible parties have been identified, their liability wshould be proportionate to the actual level of instructions given to the robot and of its autonomy, so that the greater a robot's learning capability or autonomy is, the lower other parties' responsibility should be, and the longer a robot's 'education' has lasted, the greater the responsibility of its 'teacher' should be; notes, in particular, that skills resulting from 'education' given to a robot should be not confused with skills depending strictly on its self-learning abilities when seeking to identify the person to whom the robot's harmful behaviour is actually due;
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Points out that a possible solution to the complexity of allocating responsibility for damage caused by increasingly autonomous robots could be an obligatory insurance scheme, as is already the case, for instance, with cars; notes, nevertheless, that unlike the insurance system for road traffic, where the insurance covers human acts and failures, an insurance system for robotics cshould be based on the obligation of the producer to take out an insurance for the autonomous robots it producestake into account all potential responsibilities in the chain ;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point a
Paragraph 31 – point a
a) establishing a compulsory insurance scheme where relevant and necessary for specific subcategories of robots whereby, similarly to what already happens with cars, producers or owners of robots would be required to take out insurance cover for the damage potentially caused by their robots;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point d
Paragraph 31 – point d
d) deciding whether to create a general fund for all smart autonomous robots or to create an individual fund for each and every robot category, and whether a contribution should be paid as a one-off fee when placing the robot on the market or whether periodic contributions should be paid during the lifetime of the robot;eleted
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point f
Paragraph 31 – point f
f) creating a specific legal status for robots, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause, and applying electronic personality to cases where robots make smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independentlyassess the positive and negative aspects of creating a specific legal status for autonomous robots, in particular with regard to ethical challenges and to liability for damages;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Strongly encourages international cooperation in the scrutiny of societal, ethical and legal challenges and thereafter setting regulatory standards under the auspices of the United Nations;
Amendment 367 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Registration of 'smart robots'’)
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Registration of 'smart robots'’)
For the purposes of traceability and in order to facilitate the implementation of further recommendations, a system of registration of advanced robots shcould be introduced, where relevant and necessary for specific subcategories of robots and based on the criteria established for the classification of robots. The system of registration and the register should be Union-wide, covering the internal market, and should be managed by an EU Agency for Robotics and Artificial Intelligence.
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Civil law liability’)
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Civil law liability’)
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 2 (after subheading ‘Civil law liability’)
Annex – paragraph 2 (after subheading ‘Civil law liability’)
Amendment 373 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 2 (after subheading ‘Interoperability, access to code and intellectual property rights’)
Annex – paragraph 2 (after subheading ‘Interoperability, access to code and intellectual property rights’)
Amendment 377 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Charter on Robotics’)
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Charter on Robotics’)
The Commission, when proposing legislation or non-legislative initiative relating to robotics, should take into account the principles enshrined in the following Charter on Robotics.
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 3 (after heading ‘CHARTER ON ROBOTICS’)
Annex – paragraph 3 (after heading ‘CHARTER ON ROBOTICS’)
The code should not replace the need to tackle all majorpotential legal challenges in this field, but should have a complementary function. It will, rather, facilitate the ethical categorisation of robotics, strengthen the responsible innovation efforts in this field and address public concerns.
Amendment 381 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – (after subheading ‘Precaution’)
Annex – (after subheading ‘Precaution’)
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Accountability’)
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Accountability’)
Robotics engineers should remain accountable for the social, environmental and human health impathat their work on robotics respects that robotics may impoe code of conducts set on present and future generatut by their professions.
Amendment 383 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Privacy’)
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Privacy’)
The right to privacy must always be respected. A robotics engineer should ensure that private information is kept secure and only used appropriately. Moreover, a robotics engineer should guarantee that individuals are not personally identifiable, aside from exceptional circumstances and then only with clear, unambiguous informed consentimplement the privacy by design and by default principles. Human informed consent should be pursued and obtained prior to any man- machine interaction. As such, robotics designers have a responsibility to develop and follow procedures for valid consent, confidentiality, anonymity, fair treatment and due process. Designers will comply with any requests that any related data be destroyed, and removed from anyshould respect the data protection laws with regard to the deletion of personal datasets.
Amendment 384 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Maximising benefit and minimising harm’)
Annex – paragraph 1 (after subheading ‘Maximising benefit and minimising harm’)
Researchers should seek to maximise the benefits of their work at all stages, from inception through to dissemination. Harm to research participants/human subject/an experiment, trial, or study participant or subject must be avoided. Where risks arise as an unavoidable and integral element of the research, robust risk assessment and management protocols should be developed and complied with. Normally, the risk of harm should be no greater than that encountered in ordinary life, i.e. people should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those to which they are exposed in their normal lifestyles. The operation of a robotics system should always be based on a thorough risk assessment process, which should be informed by the precautionary and proportionality principles.The operation of a robotics system should always be based on a thorough risk assessment process that strikes a balance between the need to assess risks and the requirement to take risks to innovate
Amendment 385 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 a (new) (after subheading ‘Monitoring’)
Annex – paragraph 1 a (new) (after subheading ‘Monitoring’)
Stresses that recommendations regarding licences are not binding and therefore should respect contractual freedom and leave room for innovative licensing regimes;