Activities of Eleftherios SYNADINOS related to 2015/2103(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
Civil Law Rules on Robotics (debate) EL
Amendments (47)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the development of robotics will bring positive effects for the European Union economy but also for the daily life of individuals; whereas all robotics and artificial intelligence technology have to be developed and used with due regard for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), in particular for the rights of data protection, privacy, liberty and security, and also with due regard for private and family life;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas between 2010 and 2014 the average increase in sales of robots stood at 17 % per year and in 2014 sales rose by 29 %, the highest year-on-year increase ever, which is expected to be intensified even further, with automotive parts suppliers and the electrical/electronics industry currently being the main drivers of the growth; whereas annual patent filings for robotics technology have tripled over the last decade;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas in the short to medium term robotics and AI promise to bring benefits of efficiency and savings, not only in production and commerce, but also in areas such as transport, medical care, security, education and, farming and armed forces, while making it possible to avoid exposing humans to dangerous conditions, such as those faced when cleaning up toxically polluted sites; whereas in the longer term there is , in theory, likely potential for virtually unbounded prosperity;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that robotics and artificial intelligence, especially those with built-in autonomy or independence and the possibility of self- learning, should be subjected to the primary robotics laws or principles, such as a principle that a robot may do not harm to a human being and/or sentient beings in general and must obey a human being; these principles should also be in compliance with the rights and principles enshrined in the CFR, in particular human dignity, the respect for private and family life, the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, equality and non- discrimination, solidarity, and citizens’ rights and justice;
Amendment 25 #
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 without fully replenishing the lost jobs, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social welfare and security systems and the continued lag in pension contributions, if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence, while, for the preservation of social cohesion and prosperity, the likelihood of levying tax on the work performed by a robot or a fee for using and maintaining a robot should be examined in the context of funding the support and retraining of unemployed workers whose jobs have been reduced or eliminated;
Amendment 41 #
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; calls for the review of rules, principles and criteria regarding the use of cameras and sensors for monitoring and/or recording in robots and artificial intelligence in accordance with the Union legal framework for data protection;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the causes for concern also include physical safety, for example when a robot'’s code proves fallible, and the potential consequences of system failure or hacking of connected robots and robotic systems at a time when increasingly autonomous and self-sufficient applications come into use or are impending whether it be in relation to cars and drones or to care robots and robots used for maintaining public order and policing;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas many basic questions of data protection and fully respecting such data have already become the subject of consideration in the general contexts of the internet and e-commerce, but whereas further aspects of data ownership and possession and the protection of personal data and privacy might still need to be addressed, given that applications and appliances will communicate with each other and with databases without humans intervening or possibly without their even being aware of what is going on;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that the free flow of data is a basis for the digital economy and is essential for the development of robotics; highlights that high security of robotics and artificial intelligence systems as a whole, including their internal data systems and data flows, is crucial for the adequate utilisation of robots and artificial intelligence; stresses that a high level of safety, security and privacy of data used for the communication between people and robots and artificial intelligence, together with high quality of voice recognition systems, has to be ensured; calls on the Commission and Member States to support and incentivise the development of the necessary technology, including security by design and channels of communication and encoding;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that when personal data are processed by RPAS, whether by public authorities for law enforcement purposes or by private or public entities for other purposes, the right to the protection of private life and the right to the protection of personal data as enshrined in Article 7 and 8 CFR and Article 16 TFEU apply and the Union legal framework for data protection and rights to freedom and safety must be fully complied with;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas several foreign jurisdictions, such as the US, Japan, China and South Korea, are considering, and to a certain extent have already taken, regulatory action with respect to robotics and AI, and whereas some Member States have also started to reflect on possible legislative changes in order to take account of emerging applications of such technologies and determine the course of their evolution;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas 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 medium- and macro-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 on the basis of the priorities of economic capitals and industries or the third states which are also at the forefront of the development of robotics and AI;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the European Union could play an essential role in establishing basic ethical principles to be respected in the development, programming and use of robots and AI and in the incorporation of such principles into European regulations and codes of conduct, with the aim of shaping the technological revolution so that it serves humanity and so that the benefits of advanced robotics and AI are broadly shared, while as far as possible avoiding potential pitfalls for the general population and well-governed and prosperous society and the risk of structural failures of the European Union in comparison with third countries;
Amendment 92 #
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 crucial issue, but such legal responsibility has yet to be strictly and properly defined;
Amendment 104 #
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 the ordinary rules on liability insufficient and calls for new rules which focus on how a machine can be held – partly or entirely – responsible for its acts or omissions; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgent to address the peculiar although fundamental ethical question of whether robots should possess a legal status;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas in the scenario where a robot can take autonomous decisions, the traditional rules will not suffice to activate a robot'’s liability, since they would not make it possible to identify the party responsible, a human factor, for providing compensation and to require this party to make good the damage it has caused;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Z
Recital Z
Z. whereas, notwithstanding the scope of the Directive 85/374/EEC, the current legal framework would not be sufficient to cover the damage caused by the new generation of robots, insofar as they can be equipped with adaptive and learning abilities entailing a certain degree of unpredictability in their behaviour, since these robots would autonomously learn from their own, variable experience and interact with their environment in a unique and unforeseeable manner beyond any initial arrangements and guidelines;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Calls on the Commission to propose a common European definition of smart autonomous robots and their subcategories by taking into consideration the followingvarious specific characteristics of a smart robot:;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that a comprehensive system of registration of advanced robots should be introduced, and calls on the Commission to establish criteria for the classification of robots with a view to identsuccessfully identifying and verifying the robots that would need to be registered;
Amendment 149 #
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; calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen financial instruments for research projects in robotics and ICT and also to support their further development, evolution and practical application beyond the initial conception stage; 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 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Asks the Commission to foster research programmes that include a mechanism for short-term and meaningful verification of the outcomes in order to understand what real risks and opportunities are associated with the dissemination of these technologies; calls on the Commission to combine all its effort in order to guarantee an unhindered, socially positive and smoother transition for these technologies from research to commercialisation on the market;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the potential for empowerment through the use of robotics is nuanced by a set of tensions or risks relating to human safety, freedom, health, privacy, integrity, dignity, autonomy and data ownership, personal data protection, data ownership, the freedom to obtain or transfer information, freedom of expression and freedom to conduct a business;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that a guiding ethical framework for the design, production, transport, modification and use of robots is needed to complement the legal recommendations of the report and the existing national and Union acquis; proposes, in the annex to the resolution, a framework in the form of a charter consisting of a code of conduct for robotics engineers, of a code for research ethics committees when reviewing robotics protocols and of model licences for designers and users, respectively;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the creation of a European Agency, with its headquarters within Greek territory, for robotics and artificial intelligence in order to provide the technical, ethical and regulatory expertise needed toand to assist in the exchange of best practice, with a view to providing support to the relevant public actors, with a focus on social well-being, at both EU and Member State level, in their efforts to ensure a timely and well- informed response to the new opportunities and challenges arising from the technological development of robotics;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the potential of robotics use and the present investment dynamics as well as the possible risks of misguided implementation of the fruits of investment in robotics justify the European Agency being equipped with a proper budget and being staffed with regulators and external technical and ethical experts dedicated to the cross-sectorial and multidisciplinary monitoring of robotics- based applications, identifying standards for best practice, and, where appropriate and with the aim of preventing any emergencies, recommending regulatory measures, defining new principles and addressing potential consumer protection issues and systematic challenges; asks the Commission and the European Agency to report to the European Parliament on the latestcurrent situation, trends and potential short-term and medium-term developments in robotics on an annual basis;
Amendment 218 #
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 and personal data protection by default, active informed consent and encryption;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that the use of personal data as a 'currency' with which services can be 'bought' raises new issues in need of clarification; stresses that the use of personal data as a 'currency' must not lead to a circumvention of the basic principles governing the right to privacdignity, integrity, privacy, security and data protection;
Amendment 234 #
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, to meet consumers’ concerns, to support the practical implementation of research developments under secure conditions and to highlight the competitive advantages of the European robotics industry; 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;
Amendment 238 #
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 even though it is necessary, testing of robots in real- life scenarios, in particular in cities and on roads, raises problems and a large numberous problem of issues 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 areas where experiments with robots are permitted;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that a number of industrial sectors, and primarily the automotive sector is in most urgent need of European and global rules to ensure the cross-border development of automated vehicles so as to fully exploit their economic potential and benefit from the positive effects of technological trends; emphasises that fragmented regulatory approaches would probably hinder implementation and perhaps jeopardise European competitiveness, but could provide useful lessons; notes that although current private international law rules on traffic accidents applicable within the EU do not need urgent modification to accommodate the development of autonomous vehicles, simplifying the current dual system for defining applicable law (based on Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 and the 1971 Hague Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents) would improve legal certainty and limit possibilities for forum shopping; __________________ 4 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non- contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40).
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that human contact is one of the fundamental aspects of human care and the manifestation and expression of human nature and dignity; believes that fully replacing the human factor with robots could dehumanise caring practices, would constitute a blow to the priorities and principles which govern the operation of medical and social care and would cast doubt upon the excellence of European practices, with care recipients having the ethical right to question the quality and value of the care provided;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the great potential of robotics in the field of repairing and compensating for damaged organs and human functions, but also the complex questions raised in particular by the possibilities of human enhancement, with confirmation, in parallel, of a prohibition on eugenic practices and a complete ban on the conversion of the human body and/or parts of it into a source of direct or indirect profit; asks for the establishment of committees on robot ethics in hospitals and other health care institutions tasked with considering and assisting in resolving unusual, complicated ethical problems involving issues that affect the care and treatment of patients; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop guidelines to aid in the establishment and functioning of such committees within specific frameworks and with specific responsibilities and well- defined target outcomes for patients or sufferers;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses the importance of a European framework for remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) to protect the safety, security and privacy of EU citizens, and calls on the Commission for a follow- up to the recommendations of the European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on safe use and development of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), in the field of civil aviation5; __________________ 5 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0390.
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Draws attention to the Commission's forecast that by 2020 Europe might be facing a shortage of up to 825 000 ICT professionals and that 90 % of jobs will require at least basic digital skills; welcomes the Commission’s initiative of proposing a roadmap for the possible use and revision of a Digital Competence framework and, descriptors of Digital Competences for all levels of learners and significant support for the development of digital abilities in all age groups and irrespective of employment status;
Amendment 277 #
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, particularly with regard to how this increases the options for distance working and supports motherhood in combination with the maintenance of a decent income and contribution to the economy, demographic well-being and locality; 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 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to start monitoring medium-term and long-term job trends more closely, with a special focus on the creation and 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;
Amendment 292 #
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; believes that the adjustment of commercial employers’ contributions is a necessary precondition for the support of pension insurance capital and the re-training of surplus staff for other jobs at a level similar to that of the jobs they have lost because of the use of automated robotic jobs; 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 so;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that robots' civil liability is a crucial issue which needs to be addressed at EU level so as to ensure the same degree of transparency, consistency and legal certainty throughout the European Union for the benefit of consumers and, citizens, businesses alikend Member States;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that the future legislative instrument should provide for the application of strict liability as a rule, thus requiring only proof, within the context of necessity and proportionality, that damage has occurred and the establishment of a causal link between the harmful behaviour of the robot and the damage suffered by the injured party;
Amendment 325 #
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 could be based on the obligation of the producer to take out an insurance for the autonomous robots it produces and/or on insurance cover by the owner and legal holder of an autonomous robot, on the basis of the market situation and the possibility of covering these needs under existing insurance structures;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Considers that, as is the case with the insurance of motor vehicles, such an insurance system could be supplemented by a fund, without State capital involvement, in order to ensure that reparation can be made for damage in cases where, improperly and illegally, no insurance cover exists; calls on the insurance industry to develop new and competitive products that are duly in line with the advances in and needs of robotics;
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Notes the need also to consider proportionate and necessary amendments to international agreements such as the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic and the Hague Traffic Accident Convention;
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Strongly encourages international cooperation in setting binding regulatory standards and in the exchange of best practices under the auspices of the United Nations;
Amendment 363 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Considers that the requested proposal will not have any financial implications, while at the same time it gives an opportunity for the harmonious development and support of positive budget resources;