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.tafani@unipi.it> ha scritto:

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:20:57 +0000 From: Daniela Tafani<daniela.tafani@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-r...

------------------------------

Message: 2 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:40:08 +0000 From: Daniela Tafani<daniela.tafani@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:<4b954e94abc14570919bcb2e9f94bae4@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