Journals / Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

Possible Responsibilities of the Natural Persons Using Personal Household Social Robots under the General Data Protection Regulation

Avrupa Birliği Genel Veri Koruma Tüzüğü Kapsamında Gerçek Kişilerin Kişisel Sosyal Robot Kullanımından Doğabilecek Sorumlulukları

Pages
19–29
Publication Date
2020-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Natural persons using a personal household social robot in their home for several reasons indeed have a responsibility to obtain consent from and fulfill their informing obligations towards other persons who interact with the robot, however, this does anyhow not change the actual responsibility of the data controllers, such as the manufacturers of the robot, and/or data processors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It has been claimed that advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and robotic technologies, will be at the maximum benefit of humans due to the Machine Learning methods enabling these technologies learn and work autonomously.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data, as the blood of AI, and the algorithm, as the brain of AI, embodied in robotic bodies will take place both in personal and professional lives, thanks to their ability to socially interact with human as part of their anthropomorphized design.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Natural persons using a personal household social robot in their home for several reasons indeed have a responsibility to obtain consent from and fulfill their informing obligations towards other persons who interact with the robot, however, this does anyhow not change the actual responsibility of the data controllers, such as the manufacturers of the robot, and/or data processors.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:yapay zeka · sosyal robot · kişisel veri

Abstract

It has been claimed that advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and robotic technologies, will be at the maximum benefit of humans due to the Machine Learning methods enabling these technologies learn and work autonomously. The data, as the blood of AI, and the algorithm, as the brain of AI, embodied in robotic bodies will take place both in personal and professional lives, thanks to their ability to socially interact with human as part of their anthropomorphized design. This paper uses the scenario method to be able to analyze the responsibilities on natural persons using personal household social robots in frame of the General Data Protection Regulation and the case law of the European Court of Justice. The paper gives more weight on the questions of natural persons’ possible duties on obtaining consent and informing obligations. Natural persons using a personal household social robot in their home for several reasons indeed have a responsibility to obtain consent from and fulfill their informing obligations towards other persons who interact with the robot, however, this does anyhow not change the actual responsibility of the data controllers, such as the manufacturers of the robot, and/or data processors.

Özet

Yapay zekâ ve robotik gibi ileri teknolojilerin Makine Öğrenmesi aracılığıyla elde ettiği otonom öğrenme ve çalışabilme yeteneği sayesinde bu teknolojilerden en üst seviyede fayda sağlanabileceği düşünülmektedir. Yapay zekânın yaşam kaynağı olan verinin ve beyni olan algoritmaların vücut bulduğu robotlar, insansı tasarımlarının bir parçası olan sosyal etkileşim kurabilme yetenekleri sayesinde hem kamusal hem de kişisel yaşam alanlarında yerini alacaktır. Sosyal robotların kişisel kullanımıyla ilgili gerçek kişiler üzerindeki muhtemel sorumluluğun tartışıldığı bu makalede, senaryo yöntemiyle ortaya konulan bir durum üzerinde gerçek kişilerin rıza ve bilgilendirme sorumluluklarına ilişkin sorular sorulacak, bu sorular Avrupa Birliği’nin Genel Veri Koruma Tüzüğü ve Avrupa Adalet Divanı içtihadı kapsamında analiz edilecektir. Evlerinde çeşitli sebeplerle bir sosyal robot kullanan gerçek kişilerin ev içerisinde robotla etkileşimde bulunan diğer ilgili kişilerin rızasını alma ve onları bilgilendirme sorumluluğu bulunmakta; ancak bu durum robotun üreticileri gibi diğer veri sorumluları ve veri işleyenlerin asıl sorumluluğunu değiştirmemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

VÁRKONYİ, G. G. (2020). Possible Responsibilities of the Natural Persons Using Personal Household Social Robots under the General Data Protection Regulation. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 19–29. https://ajindex.com/articles/786048

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Ahonen, P., Alahuhta, P., Daskala, B., Delaitre, S., de Hert, P., Lindner, R., Maghiros, I., Moscibroda, A., Schreurs, W., Verlinden, M. (2008).
  2. Dark scenarios. Wright D., Friedewald M., Punie Y., Gutwirth S., Vildjiounaite E. (ed.) Safeguards in a World of Ambient Intelligence. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht, 33-142. Article 29 Working Party (2011). 15/2011 Opinion on the definition of consent adopted on 13 July 2011. Article 29 Working Party (2016). Guidelines on consent under Regulation 2016/679. Arzt S. (2019). AI Learns to Park-Deep Reinforcement Learning adresinden 10.05.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır. Astor, M. (2017). ‘Your Roomba May Be Mapping Your Home, Collecting Data That Could Be Shared’, The New York Times adresinden 09.05.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır. Avrupa Komisyonu. (2018). Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027,
  3. SWD(2018) 305 final. adresinden 09.05.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır. Avrupa Komisyonu. (2020). White Paper on Artificial Intelligence-A European approach to excellence and trust. COM(2020) 65 final. adresinden 09.05.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır. Avrupa Parlamentosu. (2015). European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics procedure, 2015/2103(INL). adresinden 09.05.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır. Barfield, W. (2018). Liability for Autonomous and Artificially Intelligent Robots, Paladyn Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 9(1), 193-203.
  4. Report of COMEST on Robotics Ethics (2017). United Nations World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. adresinden 10.05.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır. Breazeal, C. (2002).
  5. Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
  6. Broman, M. M., Finckenberg-Broman, P. (2017). Human-Robotics&AI interaction: The Robotics/AI legal entity (RAiLE©), 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) içinde, 1–7.
  7. CloudMinds (2020). XR-1 Intelligent Service Robot. adresine 09.05.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir. CARESSES (2020). Culture-Aware Robots and Environmental Sensor Systems for Elderly Support adresine 09.05.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir. Custers B.H.M., Ursic H. (2016). Big data and data reuse: a taxonomy of data reuse for balancing big data benefits and personal data protection, Internatio