spesso tra le ragioni istitutive dell'UE quella della creazione del
"mercato unico" viene dismissed come una svendita delle idealità a
vantaggio della ragione economica.
ma qui (product liability regime includes software, Artificial
Intelligence) si vede che nell'Antropocene i prodotti non sono giusto
delle 'inerti pietre grigie' ma concorrono a dare forma all'ambiente
umano e regolare i prodotti significa prendere posizione sui principi.
(ok ho scritto Antropocene ma potevo anche dire con intento puramente
descrittivo "società del capitalismo").
questo della responsabilità civile dei product manufacturers e degli
economic operators di sistemi di IA era un principio già espresso in
pressoché tutti i precedenti documenti normativi e legislativi dell'UE
che trattavano di IA.
a me pare una buona cosa perché esclude agency dei sistemi di IA e di
conseguenza impedisce quelle fantasiose cose come responsabilità del
sistema intelligente (?).
Maurizio
Il 15/12/23 12:00, Daniela Tafani <daniela.taf...@unipi.it> ha scritto:
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:20:57 +0000
From: Daniela Tafani<daniela.taf...@unipi.it>
To:"nexa@server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>
Subject: [nexa] EU updates product liability regime to include
software, Artificial Intelligence
EU updates product liability regime to include software, Artificial Intelligence
By Luca Bertuzzi |
EU policymakers reached a political agreement on Thursday (14 December) on
legislation to bring the bloc’s product liability regime in line with
technological developments, notably covering digital products like software,
which includes Artificial Intelligence.
The Product Liability Directive (PLD) provides people who have suffered
material damage from a defective product with the legal basis to sue the
relevant economic operators and seek compensation.
The product manufacturers will be liable for defectiveness resulting from a
component under its control, which might be tangible, intangible, or a related
service, like the traffic data of a navigation system.
Defectiveness
A product is deemed defective when it does not provide the safety a person is
entitled to expect based on the reasonable foreseeable use, legal requirements,
and the specific needs of the group of users for whom the product is intended.
One of the elements considered when assessing defectiveness is the capacity of
the product to continue to learn and acquire new features or knowledge; wording
meant to cover Artificial Intelligence technology based on machine learning
techniques.
Damages
Under the PLD, material damage includes death, personal injury, psychological
harm, and destruction of property. At the same time, national liability regimes
might still regulate compensation for non-material damages, such as those
resulting from discrimination.
The concept of damage also includes the loss or corruption of data that is not
used exclusively for professional purposes. The European Parliament suggested
introducing a threshold for the value of the data to qualify as a material
loss, but this idea was rejected in the talks with the Council.
Disclosure of evidence
The PLD introduces the possibility for claimants who have presented sufficient
evidence to request that a national court mandates the defendant disclose the
evidence at its disposal as long as necessary and proportionate.
Conversely, the Parliament proposed allowing the defendant to ask for the
disclosure of evidence at the disposal of the claimant under the same
conditions.
The disclosing party might request the national court to take the necessary
measures to protect the confidentiality of disclosed information including
trade secrets.
Burden of proof
Claimants must prove the product’s defectiveness, the damage suffered, and the
causal link between the two. However, under certain conditions, the
defectiveness of the product will be assumed, and it will be on the defendant
to disprove it.
The conditions include cases where the defendant fails to disclose relevant
evidence, the claimant demonstrates that the product does not comply with
mandatory product safety requirements, or an obvious malfunction causes the
damage.
The defectiveness is also presumed in cases where the claimant faces excessive
difficulties due to technical or scientific complexity to prove the
defectiveness of the product or the causal link, or the claimant proves that it
is likely that the product is defective or that there is a causal link.
Open source software
The Directive will not apply to free and open-source software developed or
supplied outside a commercial activity. The liability rules apply when the
software is supplied in exchange for a price or personal data used for anything
other than improving the software’s security or compatibility.
Compensation fund
The European Parliament included the possibility of EU countries using existing
or new national sectorial compensation schemes for victims of defective
products who fail to obtain compensation because the economic operator is
insolvent or no longer exists.
The text specifies that the member states should preferably avoid funding the
schemes with public money.
Liability exemption
The Parliament pushed a liability exemption for manufacturers of software
components to a defective product that were micro or small enterprises when
they placed that software in the market, provided that another economic
operator is liable.
However, this measure was left for contractual arrangements between the small
company and the other party.
Right of recourse
Parliamentarians included the principle that whenever more than one economic
operator is deemed liable for the same damage and is ordered to pay
compensation, each one will have the right of recourse against the others.
Risk development
The Council added the possibility for EU countries to maintain existing
measures in their legal systems that make economic operators liable even if
they can prove that they could not know the product’s defectiveness based on
the state of scientific and technical knowledge.
Limitation periods
Claimants will have three years to initiate proceedings following the damage.
The right for an injured person to seek compensation under this directive
expires after ten years, except for latent injuries that are slow to manifest,
for which the timeframe is 25 years.
Timeline
The PLD will apply to all products placed on the EU market 24 months after it
enters into force. EU countries will have until then to transpose the directive
into national law.
[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]
L'articolo è in questo luogo occhiuto:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-updates-product-liability-regime-to-include-software-artificial-intelligence/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:40:08 +0000
From: Daniela Tafani<daniela.taf...@unipi.it>
To:"nexa@server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>
Subject: [nexa] A proposito di prodotti pericolosi e non funzionanti:
Tesla recalls nearly all 2 million of its vehicles on US roads
Message-ID:<4b954e94abc14570919bcb2e9f94b...@unipi.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Tesla recalls nearly all 2 million of its vehicles on US roads
Chris Isidore, CNN
Tesla is recalling nearly all 2 million of its cars on US roads to limit the
use of its Autopilot feature following a two-year probe by US safety regulators
of roughly 1,000 crashes in which the feature was engaged.
The limitations on Autopilot serve as a blow to Tesla’s efforts to market its
vehicles to buyers willing to pay extra to have their cars do the driving for
them.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the Autopilot system
can give drivers a false sense of security and be easily misused in certain
dangerous situations when a Tesla’s technology may be unable to safely navigate
the road. The over-the-air software update will give Tesla drivers more
warnings when they are not paying attention to the road while the Autopilot’s
“Autosteer” function is turned on. Those notifications will remind drivers to
keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road, according to a
statement from NHTSA
After the recall, Teslas with Autosteer turned on will more routinely check on
the driver’s attention level – and may disengage the feature – when the
software determines the driver isn’t paying attention, when the car is
approaching traffic controls, or when it’s off the highway when Autosteer alone
isn’t sufficient to drive the car.
The recall was disclosed in a letter to Tesla posted by NHTSA, which said that
Tesla had agreed to the software update starting on Tuesday that will limit the
use of the Autosteer feature if a driver repeatedly fails to demonstrate he or
she is ready to resume control of the car while the feature is on
Tesla has been pushing its driver-assist features, including Autopilot and
what it calls “Full Self Driving,” which Tesla has insisted make driving safer
than cars operated exclusively by humans. But NHTSA has been studying reports
of accidents involving Autopilot and its Autosteer function for more than two
years.
The recall comes two days after a detailed investigation was published by the
Washington Post that found at least eight serious accidents, including some
fatalities, in which the the Autopilot feature should not have been engaged in
the first place.
Tesla’s owners manuals say: “Autosteer is intended for use only on highways and
limited-access roads with a fully attentive driver.” But the company has pushed
the idea that its driver assist features allow the cars to safely make most
driving decisions even away from those roads.
A NHTSA investigation, however, has found numerous accidents over the past
several years that suggest that these features do not live up to their names of
Autopilot and Full Self Driving.
The safety regulator in its letter to Tesla said “in certain circumstances when
Autosteer is engaged, the prominence and scope of the feature’s controls may
not be sufficient to prevent driver misuse [of the feature.]” It said that when
drivers are not fully engaged and ready to take control of the car “there may
be an increased risk of a crash.”
In addition to the software updates, Tesla will mail letters to car owners
notifying them of the change.
A history of Autopilot issues
This is not the first time that NHTSA has pushed Tesla to make changes to its
Autopilot or Full Self Driving features after finding the features posed safety
problems.
In February, Tesla recalled all 363,000 US vehicles then on the road with its
FSD feature after finding cars operating with the feature would violate traffic
laws, including “traveling straight through an intersection while in a
turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to
a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow
traffic signal without due caution.”
And NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board have been investigating
crashes involving Tesla vehicles using the various driver assist features,
including a series of crashes into emergency vehicles on the scene of other
accidents.
Tesla is not the only automaker offering driver assist features marketed as
“self-driving.” And it is not the only one to run into safety problems.
Recently General Motors’ Cruise unit suspended its driverless taxi service
nationwide after California authorities suspended its ability to operate the
system there after an accident.
But, because it markets the names Autopilot and Full Self Driving, Tesla has
made a greater emphasis than competitors on self-driving. It charges buyers
$6,000 for cars with what it calls “enhanced Autopilot.” and $12,000 for the
FSD feature.
Many who paid extra for those features have told CNN they think the features
are not worth the extra money. But while the features have found support among
other owners, the reports of serious accidents and deaths by police and safety
regulators could hurt Tesla’s efforts to market the cars and their expensive
features.
Autopilot’s importance to Tesla
Tesla is already the most valuable automaker in the world, by far, despite
having a fraction of the sales of many established automakers such as Toyota,
Volkswagen, General Motors, Ford and Stellantis.
Investors are betting on projections of future sales growth as well as the
value of its software in making those stock valuations. CEO Elon Musk has said
the company’s investment in artificial intelligence and its use in both
self-driving vehicles as well as its plans for humanoid robots are a key to its
current and future value.
“In the long term, I think, has the potential to make Tesla the most valuable
company in the world by far,” Musk said in October on a call with Wall Street
analysts. “If you have fully autonomous cars at scale and fully autonomous
humanoid robots that are truly useful, it’s not clear what the limit is.”
Tesla’s stock fell slightly Wednesday.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/tech/tesla-recall-autopilot/index.html
Qui il Safety Call Report:
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V838-8276.PDF
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
------------------------------
End of nexa Digest, Vol 176, Issue 18
*************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the knowledge gap between rich and poor is widening
witten & bainbridge, how to build a digital library
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurizio Lana
Università del Piemonte Orientale
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
