Activities of Jan Philipp ALBRECHT related to 2015/2103(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
Civil Law Rules on Robotics (debate) DE
Amendments (14)
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas developments in the field of medical applications, such as robotic prostheses and implants, make persons carrying them vitally reliant on the availability of maintenance, repairs, and enhancements;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that an EU-level approach is needed to avoid fragmentation in the internal market, and at the same time underlines the importance of the mutual recognition principle in the cross-border use of robots and robotic systems; recalls that testing, certification and market approval is only necessary in a single Member State; stresses that this should be supplemented by effective market surveillance which includes access to software where necessary, and that market surveillance authorities need to be equipped with strict legal remedies and powers to recall and sanction infractions;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that any Union legislation on robotics and artificial intelligence will include rules on privacy and data protection, the requirement to follow principles of privacy by design and by default as well as principles of proportionality and necessity regarding the processing of data; as well as the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation, calls for the review of rules, principles and criteria regarding the use of cameras and sensors in robots and artificial intelligence in accordance with the Union legal framework for data protection;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that in the continental European understanding of authors' rights, intellectual creation is tied to the personality of the author; therefore, artificial agents such as computers or robots cannot be perceived to be authors, and information produced by them cannot be eligible for copyright protection;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Points out that for the field of vital medical applications such as robotic prostheses, continuous, sustainable access to maintenance, enhancement, and in particular software updates that fix malfunctions and vulnerabilities needs to be ensured; to this end, a person carrying such a device is to be considered the full owner of the device and all its components, including software source code; considers this necessary to retain the means to support these vital devices, for example if support is no longer carried out by a supplier; therefore, additionally suggests the creation of independent trusted entities that retain the technology necessary to provide persons carrying these devices with such care, including the means to assemble and install software updates on the device; supports creating an obligation for manufacturers to provide these independent trusted entities with comprehensive design instructions as well as source code to this end, similar to the legal deposit of publications in a national library;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Commercial software and hardware producers shall be held responsible despite non liability clauses in users' agreements in case of gross negligence regarding safety and security.
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Reiterates its call on the EU Council to develop an EU common position on the use of armed drones, giving the utmost importance to respect for human rights and international humanitarian law and addressing issues such as the legal framework, proportionality, accountability, the protection of civilians and transparency; urges the EU once again to ban the production, development, and use of fully autonomous weapons which enable strikes to be carried out without human intervention; insists that human rights should be part of all;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Underlines the need to promote a policy response at global level on the use of armed drones, aimed at keeping their use strictly within the limits of international human rights and humanitarian law; to promote a ban on the development, production and use of fully autonomous weapons which enable strikes to be carried out without human intervention; to make sure that human rights are part of all dialogues with third countries on counter-terrorism;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Special attention should be paid to care robots that pose a significant privacy threat as they are expected to provide new points of access to traditionally protected spaces through the extraction and transmission of sensitive personal data information;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. The dual character of technology's impact on human capabilities has to be always considered in ethical and regulatory terms;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Underlying algorithms and their parameters should be made explicit as a mandatory requirement;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Special training on the ethical aspects in the design of algorithms should be followed by designers of robots and artificial intelligence;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7e. Designers of robotics and artificial intelligence have a responsibility to develop and follow procedures for valid consent, confidentiality, anonymity, fair treatment and due process;