Activities of Jan Philipp ALBRECHT related to 2017/2067(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on a European strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems
Amendments (8)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. Whereas algorithmic accountability and transparency means implementing technical and operational measures that ensure transparency and non-discrimination of automated decision-making and calculating of probabilities of individual behaviour; whereas transparency should give individuals meaningful information about the logic involved, the significance and the envisaged consequences; whereas this should include information about the data used for training the analytics and allow individuals to understand and monitor the decisions affecting them;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the data protection and the e-Privacy directives, and as from May 2018 the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the e- Privacy lRegisulation, are fully applicable in all aspects of the processing of personal data for C-ITS, in particular as regards the principles of purpose limitation, data minimisation and the rights of data subjects;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that, in the use of “smart cars”, the data must by default only be processed in the car or cars, and only insofar as this is technically strictly necessary for the functioning of the cooperative ITS, and must be deleted immediately thereafter; underlines that any further processing or transmission to other data controllers must be only possible based on the informed, freely given, clear and active consent of users and passengers to have their data collected and processed; underlines furthermore the need to prevent “driving walls”, which would mean that users cannot drive their own smart car if they refuse to give consent; calls for an “offline mode” option to be made available in smart cars, which allows the users to turn off transfers of personal data to other devices without hampering the ability to drive the car;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Draws attention to the fact that if the service provided is based on location data, it must provide relevantmeaningful information to the user, who must be able to withdraw his/her consent;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises the need for much greater transparency and for algorithmic accountability with regard to data processing and analytics by businesses; recalls that the GDPR already foresees a right to be informed about the logic involved in data processing;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that safedata security issues should be taken into account not only during the C- ITS device operation itself, but also in the databases in which the data are processed and / or stored; stresses further that appropriate technical, administrative and organisational requirements, including mandatory end- to-end encryption, must be defined for all stages of the processing, ensuring an adequate level of security;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Reiterates that with respect to C- ITS, producers are the key starting point for tightening up liability regimes which will lead to a better quality of products and a more secure environment in terms of external access and the documented possibility for updates;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Draws attention to the fact that data protection and confidentiality must be taken into account throughout the whole processing; stresses that the implementation of ‘privacy and data protection by design and default’ should be the starting point for the design of ITS applications and systems; recalls that anonymisation techniques may increase the trust of users in the services they are using.