Artificial Intelligence Assets and Criminal Law

 

Artificial Intelligence Assets and Criminal Law

 

criminal law and AI stock ile ilgili görsel sonucu

 

Hakan Aksoy

PhD Student

Istanbul University

2021

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

“With the development of technology, artificial intelligence assets have started to be used in almost every area of our daily lives. It is anticipated that these assets, which are now available to people service and make their jobs easier, will achieve human status and do some professions in the future. These developments also bring some legal and criminal questions. What are the legal status of artificial intelligence assets, who will have criminal responsibility for crimes that arise due to their use, and what is their role in criminal proceedings are among the questions to be answered. The purpose of this study is to make an assessment on these questions with existing legal regulations. The methodology of the study is carried out as a literature review. As a result of the study, it has been concluded that artificial intelligence assets are in the status of ‘property’, cannot be held responsible for crimes due to their use, and cannot be replaced by the subjects (judges, prosecutors, lawyers) of the proceedings, although they have important contributions to the criminal proceedings. In this context, existing legal regulations are sufficient to solve the problems that will arise. However, if artificial intelligence assets acquire ‘human’ status as a fully autonomous and conscious entity, radical changes will be required in our legal system.”

 

You

can find original paper from the link below:

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1293489

 

Is Turkish Copyright Law Ready to Protect Works Generated by Artificial Intelligence?

Is Turkish Copyright Law Ready to Protect Works Generated by

Artificial Intelligence?

 

Image for post

 

 

 

Dr. Hasan Kadir YILMAZTEKİN

Türkiye Adalet Akademisi

GSÜHFD, 2020; 2: 1513-1586

 

 

 

 

 

 

Portreit generated via AI by Mario Klingemann

 

 

Abstract

 

“Artificial intelligence (“AI”) nowadays immensely and importantly infiltrates our lives. From Apple’s Siri to Tesla’s auto-driving car and Amazon’s Alexa, we live in a world of AI goods.

The advent of AI-powered technologies increasingly affects people‟s life across the globe. With its technological advances, AI also shapes our economy and welfare.

Current AI Technologies can produce many works that might be subject of copyright law. An AI device’s ability to generate works raises the question of who will own the intellectual property rights over those works. Will it be the author who hires or contracts with the AI device programmer? Will it be the programmer? Or will it be the AI device itself? Or will it be a joint work?

In this article, we seek answers to these questions under European Union (EU), United States of America (US), United Kingdom (UK) laws and more comprehensively under Turkish law. In short, this study makes policy proposals for Turkish copyright law. It particularly offers a proposal of a solution based on a three-step test to single out the human authors(s) from the relevant actors around the AI device and model legal norms for AI-generated works.

 

 

You can reach original article from the link below:

https://dosya.gsu.edu.tr/docs/hukukfakultesi/tr/fakultedergisi/GSUHFD-2020-2.pdf

Click to access GSUHFD-2020-2.pdf

 

The European Code of Ethics on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Jurisdictions 

 

The European Code of Ethics on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Jurisdictions 

 

global network artificial intelligence ethics

 

Gizem YILMAZ

Marmara Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi

Vol 28, No 1

2020

 

 

 

Abstract

 

Artificial intelligence, which is included in many technologies we use today, serves the justice system by facilitating the work of the judicial organs thanks to the analysis, storage and connections between the systems. Especially in the United States and China, it is seen that legal counseling services are provided with lawyer robots and artificial intelligence software with the ability to make decisions is developed. Increasing the powers of artificial intelligence and the widespread use of it also lead to questioning its reliability and discussing the risks it carries. So that, even the issue of who/what will be the responsibility for the compensation of damages caused by artificial intelligence software requires new acceptance in legal systems alone. In this new society model in which artificial intelligence is included in our lives, legal rules will be regulated within the framework of ethical rules to be adopted. In this sense, the European Union, which has taken an important step to establish ethical principles between artificial intelligence and human rights and to use artificial intelligence in judicial systems, has first created a Declaration of Cooperation to determine the rules that artificial intelligence technologies will follow while serving the judiciary in the legal world and then “human-oriented ethics” with the understanding of Artificial Intelligence has published the Ethical Charter. These two basic texts are of particular importance, as they will shed light on future artificial intelligence studies in the European Union.

 

 

You can reach original article from the link below:

https://avrupa.marmara.edu.tr/dosya/avrupa/mjes%20arsiv/vol%2028_1/2_Gizem_Yilmaz.pdf

 

Feasibility Study on AI

Feasibility Study on AI

 

Council of Europe

Ad Hoc Committee on AI

2020

Introduction

“As noted in various Council of Europe documents, including reports recently adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), AI systems are substantially transforming individual lives and have a profound impact on the fabric of society and the functioning of its institutions. Their use has the capacity to generate substantive benefits in numerous domains, such as healthcare, transport, education and public administration, generating promising opportunities for humanity at large. At the same time, the development and use of AI systems also entails substantial risks, in particular in relation to interference with human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the core elements upon which our European societies are built.

AI systems should be seen as “socio-technical systems”, in the sense that the impact of an AI system – whatever its underlying technology – depends not only on the system’s design, but also on the way in which the system is developed and used within a broader environment, including the data used, its intended purpose, functionality and accuracy, the scale of deployment, and the broader organisational, societal and legal context in which it is used. The positive or negative consequences of AI systems depend also on the values and behaviour of the human beings that develop and deploy them, which leads to the importance of ensuring human responsibility. There are, however, some distinct characteristics of AI systems that set them apart from other technologies in relation to both their positive and negative impact on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

First, the scale, connectedness and reach of AI systems can amplify certain risks that are also inherent in other technologies or human behaviour. AI systems can analyse an unprecedented amount of fine-grained data (including highly sensitive personal data) at a much faster pace than humans. This ability can lead AI systems to be used in a way that perpetuates or amplifies unjust bias, also based on new discrimination grounds in case of so called “proxy discrimination”. The increased prominence of proxy discrimination in the context of machine learning may raise interpretive questions about the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination or, indeed, the adequacy of this distinction as it is traditionally understood. Moreover, AI systems are subject to statistical error rates. Even if the error rate of a system applied to millions of people is close to zero, thousands of people can still be adversely impacted due to the scale of deployment and interconnectivity of the systems. On the other side, the scale and reach of AI systems also imply that they can be used to mitigate certain risks and biases that are also inherent in other technologies or human behaviour, and to monitor and reduce human error rates.

Second, the complexity or opacity of many AI systems (in particular in the case of machine learning applications) can make it difficult for humans, including system developers, to understand or trace the system’s functioning or outcome. This opacity, in combination with the involvement of many different actors at different stages during the system’s lifecycle, further complicates the identification of the agent(s) responsible for a potential negative outcome, hence reducing human responsibility and accountability.

Third, certain AI systems can re-calibrate themselves through feedback and reinforcement learning. However, if an AI system is re-trained on data resulting from its own decisions which contains unjust biases, errors, inaccuracies or other deficiencies, a vicious feedback loop may arise which can lead to a discriminatory, erroneous or malicious functioning of the system and which can be difficult to detect.”

 

You can reach original study from the link below:

https://rm.coe.int/cahai-2020-23-final-eng-feasibility-study-/1680a0c6da

Sociological Imagination; Artificial Intelligence and Alan Turing

 

Sociological Imagination: Artificial Intelligence and Alan Turing

 

Çağatay Topal

DTCF Press, 2017

 

Abstract

“C. Wright Mills views sociological imagination as the ability to relate the most intimate to the most impersonal. There are essential linkages between personal troubles and social issues. The sociologist should be able to trace the linkages between biographies and histories. Sociological imagination necessitates sensibility, commitment and responsibility since sociology is a practice of life as well as a practice of work. Sociology is, then, a practice that potentially everyone can perform. The crucial condition is the existence of sociological imagination and sensibility. This sensibility indicates the capacity to picture a social imaginary, however broad or limited. This paper traces the sociological imagination of Alan Turing, who is often considered as the founder of modern computing technology. The history of Turing’s scientific endeavours follows (and is followed by) his biography, revealing the strong linkages between his life and work. Turing’s sensible, committed and responsible attitude is clear in several cases. This paper focuses on the case of artificial intelligence in order to assess Turing’s sociological imagination. The paper claims that Alan Turing has the sensibility and imagination to picture a social imaginary. In order to analyse Turing’s imagination in the example of artificial intelligence, the paper refers to three faces of sociological imagination of Mills: (1) emphasis on the relation between the most intimate and the most impersonal; (2)
developing new sensibilities and new spaces of sensibility; (3) imagining a social picture. By referring to these three faces, the paper analyses the biography of Turing, his mathematical but also sociological imagination, and artificial intelligence as the product of this imagination; and again through artificial intelligence, it further aims to demonstrate the different possibilities in C. W. Mills’ concept of sociological imagination.”

 

You can find original and full article from the link below:

Towards Regulation of AI Systems

 

Towards Regulation of AI Systems

 

The CAHAI Secretariat
December 2020

 

Summary

 

Title 1. International Perspective

Preliminary Chapter introduces the present report, submitted by the CAHAI to the Committee of Ministers and details the progress achieved to date, taking into account the impact of COVID-19 pandemic measures. It also includes reflections on working methods, synergy and complementarity with other relevant stakeholders and proposals for further action by the CAHAI by means of a robust and clear roadmap.

Chapter 1 outlines the impact of AI on human rights, democracy and rule of law. It identifies those human rights, as set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), its Protocols and the European Social Charter (“ESC”), that are currently most impacted or likely to be impacted by AI.

 Chapter 2 maps the relevant corpus of soft law documents and other ethical-legal frameworks developed by governmental and non- governmental organisations globally with a twofold aim. First, we want to monitor this ever-evolving spectrum of non-mandatory governance instruments. Second, we want to prospectively assess the impact of AI on ethical principles, human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

Chapter 3 aims to contribute to the drafting of future AI regulation by building on the existing binding instruments, contextualising their principles and providing key regulatory guidelines for a future legal framework, with a view to preserving the harmonisation of the existing legal framework in the field of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

 

You can find original document from the link below:

https://rm.coe.int/cahai-ai-regulation-publication-en/1680a0b8a4

Data Privacy Guidelines for AI Solutions

 

Data Privacy Guidelines for AI Solutions

November 2020

Purpose

  1. The purpose of this paper is to provide guiding principles concerning the use of personal and personal related information in the context of Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions1 developed as part of applied Information & Communication Technologies (ICTs), and to emphasise the importance of a legitimate basis for AI data processing by governments and corporations. 
  2. This Guidance is intended to serve as a common international minimum baseline for data protection standards regarding AI solutions, especially those to be implemented at the domestic level, and to be a reference point for the ongoing debate on how the right to privacy can be protected in the context of AI solutions. 
  3. AI solutions are intended to guide or make decisions that affect all our lives. Therefore, AI solutions are currently subject to broader debates within society. The subject of these debates – moral, ethical and societal questions including non-discrimination and free participation, are still to be solved. All of these questions are preconditioned by lawful data processing from a data privacy perspective. The data privacy underpinnings for AI solutions are the focus of this Guidance. 
  4. This guideline is based on the United Nations Charter of Human Rights (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec. 10th , 1948, reaffirmed 2015, UDHR) and reflects the spirit as well as the understanding of this Charter. Above all Article 7 (non-discrimination) and Article 12 (right to privacy) shall be considered whenever developing or operating AI solutions. The themes and values of these UDHR Articles are found in Articles 2 and 3 (nondiscrimination), and Article 17 (privacy) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and are obligations upon countries that have ratified the Treaty. 

Scope

  1. This Guidance is applicable to the data processing of AI solutions in all sectors of society including the public and private sectors. Data processing in this context means the design, the development, the operation and decommissioning of an AI solution. 
  2. This Guidance is applicable to all controllers of AI solutions. Controller in this context means designer, developer or operator (self-responsible or principal) each in its specific function. 
  3. This Guidance does not limit or otherwise affect any law that grants data subjects more, wider or in whatsoever way better rights, protection, and/or remedies. This Guidance does not limit or otherwise affect any law that imposes obligations on controllers and processors where that law imposes higher, wider or more rigorous obligations regarding data privacy aspects.
  4. This Guidance does not apply to AI solutions that might be performed by individuals in the context of purely private, non-corporate or household activities.

 

(All submissions must have been received by 2 November 2020.)

 

You can find original draft Guidelines from the link below:

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/SR_Privacy/2020_Sept_draft_data_Privacy_guidelines.pdf

Preventing Discrimination Caused by the Use of Artificial Intelligence 

 

Preventing Discrimination Caused by the Use of Artificial Intelligence 

Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination
Rapporteur: Christophe LACROIX, Belgium, 2020

 

Summary

Artificial intelligence (AI), by allowing massive upscaling of automated decision-making processes, creates opportunities for efficiency gains – but in parallel, it can perpetuate and exacerbate discrimination. Public and private sector uses of AI have already been shown to have a discriminatory impact, while information flows tend to highlight extremes and foster hate. The use of biased datasets, design that fails to integrate the need to protect human rights, the lack of transparency of algorithms and of accountability for their impact, as well as a lack of diversity in AI teams, all contribute to this phenomenon.

States must act now to prevent AI from having a discriminatory impact in our societies, and should work together to develop international standards in this field. 

Parliaments must moreover play an active role in overseeing the use of AI-based technologies and ensuring it is subject to public scrutiny. Domestic antidiscrimination legislation should be reviewed and amended to ensure that victims of discrimination caused by the use of AI have access to an effective remedy, and national equality bodies should be effectively equipped to deal with the impact of AI-based technologies. 

Respect for equality and non-discrimination must be integrated from the outset in the design of AI-based systems, and tested before their deployment. The public and private sectors should actively promote diversity and interdisciplinary approaches in technology studies and professions.

 

You can reach original report from the link below:

Click to access doc.%2015151.pdf

1 2 3 15