Source: https://dig.watch/issues/internet-things-iot
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:18:49+00:00

Document:
The Internet of Things (IoT) includes a wide range of Internet-connected devices, from highly digitalised cars, home appliances (e.g. fridges), and smart watches, to digitalised clothes that can monitor health. IoT devices are often connected in wide-systems, typically described as 'smart houses' or 'smart cities'. Such devices both generate enormous amount of data and create new contexts in which data are used. IoT triggers a multitude of policy issues, from standardisation to protection of privacy.
When we say that Internet helps us to connect we also implicitly refer to the fact that some of our devices can be connected and transfer data among themselves. Primarily, we are thinking about computers, mobile phones, tablets, e-readers. But what if every device we use on a daily basis, such as transportation vehicles, home appliances, clothes, city infrastructure, medical and healthcare devices, can connect via the global network to a remote center or to other device? This gives the term ‘connected’ a different, broader meaning.
This is the general idea behind the IoT, a network of physical objects or ‘things’ connected via electronics, software, and sensors to exchange data with manufacturers, operators, or other connected device. The main objective is to achieve greater value or service. IoT devices use the present Internet structure, not a separate/different Internet.
The most common sensors currently used for IoT device communication are radio frequency identifiers, universal product codes, and electronic product codes. In addition, researchers are continuously exploring new modalities for connecting IoT devices, such light emitting diodes (LEDs).
Some of the most developed IoT industries include home automation, health monitoring, and transportation. Other industries where IoT is playing a prominent role important role are energy, infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing, and consumer applications.
In general terms, the IoT in increasingly seen as having a significant development potential, that can contribute to achieving the sustainable development goals (as underlined in an ITU–Cisco Systems report from 2016, and at various sessions held at the IGF 2016 meeting).
Even if the size of a single piece of data generated by connected Iot devices could be quite small, the final sum is staggering due to the number of devices, estimated to reach between 20 and 100 billion by 2020. According to the International Data Corporation, by 2020 the ‘digital universe’ will reach 44 zettabytes (trillion gigabytes), and 10% of this amount would come from IoT devices.
The business sector is leading major IoT initiatives. While companies such as Intel and Cisco continuously develop their portfolios of IoT services, telecom operators have started to deploy IoT-dedicated networks on large scale, to encourage the use of IoT. Moreover, companies from different sectors are joining forces in alliances aimed at further contributing to developments in the field of IoT. Examples include the Open Connectivity Foundation, whose aim is to contribute to achieving interoperability among IoT devices, and the LoRa Alliance, which works in the field of IoT standardisation.
Governments are also becoming more and more aware of the opportunities brought by the IoT, and they are launching various types of initiatives in this area. The European Union, for example, has initiated the Horizon 2010 Work Programme 2016 -2017: Internet of Things Large Scale Pilots for testing and deployment, a funding programme aimed to encourage the take up of IoT in Europe. In the USA, the Department of Commerce has issued a Green Paper on Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things, and is exploring a potential role (and related benefits and challenges) for the government in supporting the evolution of the IoT field. The Chinese government, on the other hand, has created the Chengdu Internet of Things Technology Institute, through which it funds research in various IoT-related areas.
The IoT generates massive amounts of data, and this has triggered major concerns related to privacy and data protection. Some IoT devices can collect and transmit data that are of personal nature (e.g. the case of medical IoT devices), and there are concerns about how the devices themselves are protected (ensuring their security), as well as about how the data they collect is processed and analysed. While information transmitted by an IoT device might not cause privacy issues, when sets of data collected from multiple devices are put together, processed, and analysed, this may lead to sensitive information being disclosed.
IoT devices are increasingly used as tools in large cyber-attacks, bringing the security of such devices into sharper focus. One notable example is from October 2016, when a series of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against Dyn Inc., a large Domain Name System hosting and DDoS‐response provider serving top online service providers, rendered many services – including Twitter, PayPal, Reddit, and Spotify – temporarily unavailable, and slowed down Internet traffic across the globe. In the context of ongoing debates on the responsibility that the private sector should take when it comes to IoT security, companies have started to launch initiatives in this area. In one such example, AT&T, IBM, Nokia, Palo Alto Networks, Symantec, and Trustsonic have formed the IoT Cybersecurity Alliance, with the aim to ‘help customers address IoT cybersecurity challenges, demystify IoT security, and share best practices’. At the same time, standard-setting organisations are more carefully looking into developing IoT security standards. Despite such initiatives, there have been calls for governmental intervention, with security experts arguing that the private sector is not sufficiently motivated to appropriately address IoT security concerns, and that regulations and public policies are needed to cover issues related to security standards, interoperability, and software updates requirements.
Ongoing developments in the field of automated systems (i.e. self-driving cars, medical robots, etc.) bring into light an increasingly important interplay between IoT, artificial intelligence (AI), and big data. Artificial intelligence, a field that undergoes a very fast development, provides ‘thinking’ for IoT devices, making them ‘smart’. These devices, in turn, generate significant amounts of data – sometimes labeled as big data. This data is then analysed and used for the verification of initial AI algorithms and for the identification of new cognitive patterns that could be integrated into new AI algorithms.
While this interplay presents an enormous business potential, it also brings new challenges in areas such as the labour market, education, safety and security, privacy, ethics and accountability. For example, while AI systems can potentially lead to economic growth, they could also generate significant disruptions to the labour market. As AI systems involve judgements and decision‐making – replacing similar human processes – concerns have also been raised regarding ethics, fairness, justice, transparency, and accountability. The risk of discrimination and bias in decisions made by autonomous technologies is one such concern, very well illustrated in the debate that has surrounded Jigsaw’s Conversation AI tool. While potentially addressing problems related to misuse of the Internet public space, the software also raises a major ethical issue: How can machines determine what is and what is not appropriate language?
Such challenges have determined both governments and the private sector to take several steps. The US National Science and Technology Council outlined its strategy for promoting AI research and development, while the White House made recommendations on how to prepare the workforce for an AI‐driven economy. The UK Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology asked the UK government to take proactive measures. In the European Parliament, the Committee on Legal Affairs proposed the adoption of an EU ‘legislative instrument’ to tackle legal questions related to the development of robotics and AI, as well as the introduction of ‘civil law rules on robotics’. In the private sector sphere, major Internet companies (IBM, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and DeepMind) have launched the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence initiative, aimed at addressing the privacy, security, and ethical challenges of AI, and initiating a broader societal dialogue on the ethical aspects of new digital developments.
In line with its objective of supporting the development of the IoT ecosystem in Europe, the Alliance mostly focuses on developing policy recommendations on issues of relevance for the IoT, and facilitating the adoption of such recommendations across its members. The various working groups created within the organisation have produced reports and recommendations focusing on issues such as smart manufacturing, wearable technologies, smart mobility, smart cities, food safety IoT applications, and smart living environments. In November 2016, the Alliance issued a set of policy recommendations on the Digitisation of European industry, addressing IoT-related policy issues, including trust, numbering and addressing, the free flow of data, and liability.
The Alliance focuses its work on standardising and promoting the deployment of Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) as a key enabler of IoT applications. It has developed the LoRa protocol (LoRaWAN), aimed at facilitating interoperability among IoT devices. In addition, it has launched the LoRa Alliance Certified programme, designed as a mark of recognition that IoT products meet national frequency regulations, and ensure LoRaWAN interoperability and compliance of network infrastructure. Members of the Alliance collaborate and share knowledge and experience to guarantee interoperability among their products. The organisation has produced several white papers on issues such as the market potential of LPWA technologies and LoRaWAN security.
The Foundation dedicates most of its work to creating specifications for seamless interoperability among IoT connected devices. The developed OIC specification tackles issues such as the core architecture, interfaces, and services, security, and smart home devices, among others. Additional specifications are under ongoing development and review. The Foundation also sponsors the IoTivity project, aimed to deliver an open source reference implementation of the IoT interoperability specifications it is developing. In addition, it runs certification programmes aimed to provide real world testing to help developers ensure that their IoT products work.
The IEC carries our standardisation and conformity assessment activities covering a vast array of technologies. These range from smart cities, smart grids, and smart energies, to electromagnetic compatibility between devices, digital system interfaces and protocols, and fibre optics and cables. Other areas covered by the Commission through its work include cable networks, multimedia home systems and applications for end-user network, multimedia e-publishing and e-book technologies, safety of information technology and communication technology, wearable electronic devices and technologies, cards and personal identification, programming languages, IT for learning, education, and training, cloud computing and distributed platforms, and the Internet of Things.
The article describes several ‘tips’ that could help startups succeed in the Internet of Things market.
The report outlines data security threats and concerns in emerging cloud, big data and Internet of Things technologies. Based on the results of a global survey conducted among over 1100 senior security executives, the report identifies the following as the main data security concerns: security breaches/attacks, increased vulnerability from shared infrastructure, lack of control over the location of data, privacy violations from data originating in multiple countries, protecting sensitive data generated by IoT.
The document provides an overview of Internet of Things (IoT) origins, drivers, applications, and communications models, and examines several IoT related challenges: security; privacy; interoperability and standards; legal, regulatory, and rights; and emerging economies and development.
The report looks into how the Internet of Things is issues to address social, economic, and business challenges, discusses factors that accelerate the adoption of the technology, and points to IoT security and privacy related challenges. It also makes recommendations for how business and consumers can derive the most benefit from IoT in the following two years.
The report analyses the opportunities that homes equipped with Internet of Things connected devices offer to society, as well as at the security and privacy risks inherent to such devices. It also provides a series of recommendations on how to maximize the value of IoT home devices, while minimising concerns.
This report analyses threats, attack patterns, and common strategies used to attack Internet of Things technologies employed in the automotive industry.
The report analyses the role that Internet of Things technologies can play in tackling global development challenges, and outlines several enabling policies that could facilitate IoT deployment.
The report explores how Internet of Things applications (can) create value for companies, consumers, and economies, and discusses enablers and barriers in this regard, as well as new business models and a new tech market for IoT.
The report explores the emergence of the Internet of Things connected homes’, analyses consumers’ demand and adoption, and outlines several steps that the industry and the policy makes can take to ensure that IoT can realise its full potential in improving people’s lives.
The study explores current and future security challenges facing enterprise and government organisations in the Internet of Things market.
The report explores the transformative potential of the industrial Internet of things, and analyses opportunities and benefits deriving from IoT connected products, as well as risks and challenges associated with the evolution of the technology. It also outlines a number of recommendations aimed to accelerate the overall IoT development.
Does autonomy in the critical functions of weapons systems challenge the ability of states or parties to a conflict, commanders, and individual combatants to apply IHL principles on the conduct of hostilities (distinction, proportionality, precautions) in carrying out attacks in armed conflict?
Does autonomy in the critical functions of weapons systems challenge the maintenance of combatant and commander responsibility for decisions to use force?
What is the responsibility of states or parties to a conflict, commanders, and individual combatants in decisions to use force involving autonomous weapons systems, in light of the principles of IL derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience (Martens Clause)?
How can legal reviews of weapons with autonomous functions contribute to compliance with IHL? What are past or potential challenges in conducting weapons reviews of weapons with autonomy in their critical functions, and how can these challenges be addressed?
The session further discussed the application of existing legal frameworks for the deployment of LAWS, with a focus on the implementation of Art. 36 Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 (API); on the eventual necessity of negotiating new legal frameworks, meeting the challenges posed by autonomous technologies; and on the recurrent aspect of meaningful human control.
Additional points were raised, arguing that responsibilities for the use of systems exist regardless of the autonomy of the weapon being used. From the floor, the USA explained its working paper CCW/GGE.1/2019/WP.5 - Implementing International Humanitarian Law in the Use of Autonomy in Weapon Systems: existing IHL legal frameworks apply to the use of LAWS; nonetheless, the delegation acknowledged that emerging technologies in the area of LAWS could strengthen the implementation of IHL, by reducing the risk of civilian casualties, and facilitating the investigation or reporting of incidents involving potential violations. Another delegation tried to push the discussion a step further, arguing that the existing legal frameworks of IL and IHL should be complemented by Criminal Law as well. Furthermore, they recalled the importance of trust and the role of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs). Another intervention from the floor complemented this view by explaining that while IHL represents a good basis for discussions on the use of LAWS, additional legal instruments need to be developed to meet the specificities of the new technology involved. Proposals to regulate such systems through legal binding instruments were proposed by the Non-Aligned Movement and Other States Parties to the CCW, in accordance to the working paper, CCW/GGE.1/2018/WP.1 - General Principles on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, proposed in April 2018.
Moreover, some aspects of LAWS were re-stressed with regards to the features of lethality, autonomy, and machine learning. On the last point, the chair underlined the risks involved in the use of different kinds of datasets which are not reviewed, and that therefore, create the most risks.
The delegations reacalled the achievements reached in previous sessions in agreeing that international humanitarian law (IHL) applies to LAWS, with a particular focus on how Art. 36 API provides the necessary legal reviews of new systems and weapons, even by countries that did not ratify the Protocol. Expanding the point, delegations recalled the need for establishing mechanisms of information and best practice sharing to address the challenges posed by LAWS. Furthermore, a delegation proposed the creation of a compendium collecting of best practices on the use of LAWS in compliance with IHL. An interesting proposition was additionally put forth with the aim of strengthening Art. 36 API. The establishment of an annual report mechanism on the development of LAWS and the creation of a checklist and toolkit or guiding principles to refer to was proposed. Nonetheless, a delegation raised some concerns about such legal reviews: Algorithms may produce different results in different environments, therefore, there is a crucial need to test them in realistic contexts and rely on certifications. Indeed, the self-learning capabilities of the systems represent important challenges for system reviewers. Finally, weapons systems always have a margin of error for which only the human being deploying the weapon can be held accountable. Another delegation reiterated, IHL is highly context-dependent and therefore, the critical functionalities of the system should be assessed case by case. Regarding the wording ‘critical functionalities’, an intervention from the floor contested its abstract use, arguing that it might create misunderstandings over its meaning.
In order to ensure the full applicability of IHL, delegations stressed the crucial importance of human control as the only variable able to ensure the respect of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution, accountability, and responsibility. Following this line, a delegation said that it is currently impossible for a machine to replicate the human experience and capacity for understanding a conflict situation; while another argued that LAWS do not have the ability to make decisions proportionally and to respect and comply to ethical values. The indispensable necessity to have meaningful human control in the use and development of LAWS was also stressed. It was explained that in a narrow human-in-the-loop situation (in which the human action is related to the deployment of one system) or a wider human-in-the loop situation (in which the human actor is in control of a broader range of systems), there exists the crucial necessity to always be able to control, modify, or abort the deployment of the weapon. To ensure this, new weapons reviews need to satisfy high standards of predictability and reliability. On this last point, delegations stressed the importance of a multi-dimensional approach, as well as the need to develop AI systems with an holistic approach.
A last intervention underlined the qualitative measurement and judgment needed in order to comply to the principles of proportionality, distinction, and precaution at the core of IHL, which can be assured only by human commanders and combatants. In addition to that, the need to have control by design in the development of new weapon systems, and control in the use of those systems, which is most important for the compliance of the conduct of hostilities under IHL was also stressed. The intervention reiterated the necessity of always having human supervision and the ability to intervene; predictability and reliability features embedded in the systems; and a possibility to always have operational constraints.
The discussion was guided by the following questions: .
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approaches to ensuring compliance with IHL and responsibility for decisions on the use of weapons systems and the use of force?
improving implementation of the existing legal requirements, including legal reviews of weapons.
Given that these options are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the common goal of ensuring compliance with IHL and maintaining human responsibility for the use of force, what are possible next steps to be taken by the GGE?
How can the GGE build upon the areas of convergence captured in the Possible Guiding Principles agreed in 2018? How can those principles be operationalised?
A delegation supplemented its points from the previous day and added concrete examples in order to foster a better understanding of its positions. Some have considered that the GGE should establish standards for LAWS (i.e. tolerable levels of unpredictability, autonomy). In their opinion, this would only be possible if the GGE was composed of technical experts and if the delegations had the appropriate technical understanding about these issues. The delegation further believes that more discussions would be useful to identify how IHL applies to newly developed weapons. They explained that in their national reviews, IHL assessment is already implemented in weapons acquisition processes wherein weapon reviews test the effectiveness and survivability among other criteria. An example from 2015 about the performance testing of ANTPQ53 (a counter-battery radar which can direct artillery fire to the place where enemy mortar attacks originate from) was then provided. The Internet link of the review will be provided to interested parties. They explained that the acquisition of this system also entailed a particular legal review in the process. The assessment includes a distinction between military objects, civilians, military forces and objects. The data used for that system was collected between 2012 and 2015.
The review found that the radar acquired targeted quite well but did have difficulties distinguishing between mortar and shells. False target occurrence gave off warnings in the situation where no threat was present. The DoD regulation makes sure that the weapon operates in a tolerable limit of mistakes.
Another delegation explained that there are two criteria used to determine the lawfulness of weapons: its intended use and proportionality. LAWS’ lawfulness therefore depends on the operationalibility in which they work. However, today’s conflicts are mostly fought in cities and involve many civilians. Therefore, compliance with IHL would be extremely difficult for automated systems that do not rely on human oversight. Additionally, they noted that the law applies to humans and not to machines. Moreover, according to the principles of international law, states continue to be responsible for the development and use of autonomous systems. In this view, the lawfulness of weapons thus has to be determined by its intended use and additional legal review systems would be necessary in order to adequately assess LAWS.
Other delegations welcomed the proposal calling for the start of negotiations on a binding instrument.
A delegation reminded the participants of the experiences regarding the ban of cluster ammunition which became part of IHL in 2010, which has had effects even on countries which did not ratify the treaty. They noted that IHL is not static and underlined that prior to the ban of cluster ammunition, no treaties to preventively prohibit the use of specific weapons had been signed. The delegation called upon states to undertake weapons reviews and to improve the review processes worldwide. It was further noted that before the treaty to ban cluster ammunition, IHL was not enough to cover that type of weapon, and so, it is very unlikely that IHL would be enough to cover LAWS, as well as any new and unknown systems. Art. 36 on its own was deemed insufficient, thus a negotiating mandate of the GGE was fully welcomed.
An intervention from the floor emphasised that weapon reviews are necessary but not enough. They noted that it will become increasingly difficult for commanders to understand systems and whether the use of LAWS is lawful in a specific context. With additional processes, Art. 36 reviews can be improved.
The Chair explained that a report summarising the issue is expected and so the issue will be further discussed in the following days.
The first session of the 2019 United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (UN GGE on LAWS) was opened on 25 March 2019 and chaired by Mr Ljupčo Jivan Gjorgjinski (Minister Counsellor, Chargé d’affaires a.i. of North Macedonia). The first part of the meeting was dedicated to the adoption of the agenda, the confirmation of the rules of procedure, and the organisation of the work of the GGE. On the organisation of the work of the GGE, there was a strong proposal for two amendments: first, the removal of the clarifying questions to the agenda item, arguing that this would impact the time available for substantial discussions; and second, the shortening of the time for discussions on the human element. The first amendment was contested by some delegations, with the respective arguments that delegations can be pragmatic and decide when and in which circumstances to address the questions. With regard to the second amendment, other delegations stressed the importance of the human element. Therefore, a longer time is needed for discussing it. There was also a proposal to add a footnote in the organisation of the work, explaining that the clarifying questions are indicative questions from the chair, which are not subject to consensus. The proposal was rejected by one delegation, which suggested inserting the questions in an additional Food for Thought Paper. The chair stressed that this was the initial goal of the questions, which will eventually be discussed in dedicated sessions during the meeting.
How and to what extent is human involvement in the use of force currently exercised with existing weapons that employ or can employ autonomy in their critical functions, over different stages of their life cycle?
‘Sentry’ weapons with autonomous modes or functions.
CCW/GGE.1/2019/WP.1 - Potential opportunities and limitations of military uses of LAWS.
Submitted by the Russian Federation, the paper highlights the benefits of LAWS with regards to the decrease of application of weapons, the increase of accuracy of weapon guidance, and the lowering the rate of unintentional strikes against civilians and civilian items. Furthermore, the Russian Federation underlined the possible uses of LAWS for the destruction of military facilities; protection and safekeeping of critical infrastructure (atomic power plants, dams, bridges, and so on); elimination of terrorist groups; and protection of civilians. Moreover, Russia argued that the existing automated systems used in military apparatus should not fall into a ‘special’ category requiring restrictions or bans. It further argued that it is the degree of automation that allows the system to operate in ‘dynamic combat situations and in various environments while ensuring an adequate level of discrimination and accuracy’. Russia’s position stressed that the compliance to international humanitarian law (IHL) is driven by the degree of automation, existing international frameworks are already applicable and they already limit automated weapons systems, therefore do not need to be updated. Among these are: indiscriminate and disproportionate use of LAWS, as well as their use against civilians or without precautions taken to protect civilians is unacceptable; any military use of LAWS should be conducted in compliance with the principle of proportionality between the military necessity and the damage caused; the decision on whether and how to use LAWS is made by a person planning the military operation and developing scenarios of the use (mission) of these systems.
CCW/GGE.1/2019/WP.2 - Australia's System of Control and Applications for Autonomous Weapon Systems. The working paper is submitted alongside Australia's 2018 working paper.
Australia stressed its position in the use of military force, and the implementation of the ‘system of control’ which ‘incrementally builds upon itself, embedding controls into military processes and capability at all stages of their design, development, training and usage’. In Australia’s view, this would ensure respect of the principles of accountability and responsibility.
CCW/GGE.1/2019/WP.3 - Possible outcome of the GGE 2019 and future actions of international community on LAWS.
The paper was submitted by Japan. With regard to the definition of LAWS, Japan stressed the need to deepen the discussion on the notion of lethality and forms of human control. Moreover, with regards to the scope of rules, Japan highlighted that fully autonomous weapons systems with lethality do not allow a meaningful human control. International law ethics, as well as the principles of IHL should be included in the development of LAWS, and any violation of IHL should be attributed ‘to States or individual persons as is the case with conventional weapons systems’. Finally, Japan underlined the importance of information sharing and confidence building measures, necessary for ensuring secure transparency.
CCW/GGE.1/2019/WP.4 - Food for Thought Paper. Submitted by Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg.
Crucial aspects that were recalled and re-stressed were the need for LAWS to comply to existing legal frameworks of international law (IL), IHL and especially compliance to the Martens Clause. New technologies complement military activities and have the potential to change armed conflicts. Many European delegations recalled the need for meaningful human control as the only element able to comply to principles of IHL. To this extent, it was proposed to push for awareness training with the aim of promoting responsible innovation for policymakers and businesses. Underlining this view, a delegation re-proposed the adoption of a political declaration outlining principles such as the necessity of human control in the use force, the importance of human accountability, and the elements of transparency and technology review. Finally, the need for trust between humans and machines was acknowledged, recalling the role of art. 36 API in addressing the deployment of new technologies.
Delegations recognised that the use of LAWS can have beneficial aspects in complementing military activities. It was argued that the discussions of possible options must involve discussions on how these technologies can enhance the protection of civilians and civilian items. Nonetheless, as other delegations pointed out, the disarmament machinery and arms control on LAWS can lead to an arms race from states and non-state actors. Additional issues were stressed with regards to the biases LAWS can perpetuate. For instance, artificial intelligence (AI) can be heavily biased and such algorithmic biases can rise at all stages of development. In addition to that, a delegation highlighted that discussions and decisions on LAWS should not amplify existing asymmetries.
A final intervention from the floor clarified that there is the need to look at the development of AI systems with impartiality and objectivity in order not to sacrifice the development of science and technology in discussions.
Which characteristics of autonomous weapons systems would be important from the point of view of IHL and the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) specifically?
Is autonomy an attribute of a weapon system as a whole or should it be attached to different tasks of weapons systems?
Is the environment of deployment, specific constraints on time of operation, or scope of movement over an area, important from an IHL/CCW perspective?
Is a differentiation between anti-personnel and anti-material weapons meaningful from an IHL/CCW perspective?
The session was characterised by discussions on three main points: the need for human control in order to ensure compliance with IL and IHL; the distinction between civilian uses of new technologies and military applications; the need for a definitive or working definition for LAWS.
Delegations recalled the need of having a human-centric approach, underlining human control as a necessary element. As explained by a delegation, the use of systems that do not have human control mechanisms is prohibited by existing legal frameworks. Therefore, IHL prohibits the use of LAWS because they do not have the capacity of applying the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions. This view was complemented by the argument that human control is an indispensable variable to avoid the dehumanisation of wars. In addition to that, delegations stressed the need for review of new systems in accordance to Art. 36 API and systems which are not in compliance with IL and IHL should not be deployed. In this context, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) contribution should be highlighted. The ICRC proposed a distinction between weapons systems in which the human actor chooses the objective; and weapon systems in which the exact time and location is determined by the weapon according to the environment (found to a limited extent in air defense systems). Especially in the last case, it is essential to ensure meaningful human control.
The unprecedented characteristic of LAWS is the reliance of technologies which might be useful in civilian activities. As a result, some delegations such reiterated the need to distinguish between military and civilian uses of new technologies, arguing that the development of new technologies should not be restricted for civilian uses.
Concept of full autonomy: Refers to the notion of a system able to operate independently without the intervention, decision, and command of a human actor. The concept of autonomy was questioned by one delegation with the argument that it represents a relative term: as a result, the delegation proposed to change the wording with ‘weapon systems having autonomous features or functions’. On this point, it was underlined that the notion of a fully autonomous system has limited utility.
Design to conduct military tasks without human operator: Refers to the idea that these systems are able to run through a targeting cycle, with the final intention to apply lethal force, without any human intervention (described in the working paper CCW/GGE.1/2019/WP.4 - Food for Thought Paper, submitted by Belgium, Ireland, and Luxembourg).
Design, location, and target is not known to the human operator: Refers to the idea of machine learning systems which are able to adapt to complex environment scenarios and select the appropriate actions to accomplish their mandate. With regards to this variable, a delegation proposed three additional elements: self-mobility, self-direction ability, self-determination ability.
Lethality: Represented one of the most contested element. While some delegations stressed it as an indispensable variable in the definition of LAWS, a delegation argued against the notion of lethality as being a prerequisite in the characterisation of LAWS, justifying the statement with the idea that non-lethal systems can have lethal effects and implications when deployed.
Indiscriminate feature: Implies a loss in the principle of distinction and proportionality under IHL.
Ability to redefine without human intervention (explicitly described in the Food for Thought Paper): Refers to the notion of learning from the complex environment in which the system has been deployed and take decisions for the accomplishment of the mission without human intervention.
Reliability and predictability: refers to the need of systems to satisfy high standards.
Ability to impose constraints once the weapons are deployed: Refers to the possibility to always take control of the system even when it is deployed. In other words, it refers to the idea of being able to have the human control over the system at all times.
Mr Ian Yarnold (Chair, IWG on Intelligent transport Systems, UNECE) spoke about the work of the UNECE’s Working Party 29 (WP 29) which is the world forum for harmonisation of vehicles. He explained that the WP 29 deals with issues around emissions, general safety, passive safety, lighting and light signaling, noise/tyres, and active safety automatic systems among others. The group works in co-operation with various stakeholders and is open to member states of the UN, relevant non-governmental organisations and international organisations.
The session was moderated by Mr Ian Yarnold (Head, International Vehicle Standards Division, Department for Transport, UK).
Mr Frank Schlehuber (Senior Consultant Market Affairs, CLEPA) said that the automotive aftermarket which provides spare parts and other elements for vehicles generates around €400 billion worldwide. This market will be declining, especially due to the electrification of cars. However, Schlehuber noted that there is a chance for new mobility services, given the developments in networked cars estimated at €34 billion, and that access to data also means access to the market.
Schlehuber referred to studies such as Deloitte’s 2017 study which predicts that 20% of the revenue of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) could come from mobility and connected services. For this reason, Schlehuber explained that many members of CLEPA want to get into the new mobility market and topics such as predictive maintenance services, parts design optimisation, and driver style surveillance. He pointed out that we need to get a common understanding on how to make the data economy work and how it can be turned into new services, and he predicted that in the next two years there will be more changes in the automotive sector than over the last decade. The reason for this is that OEMs have to embrace a new role as service providers rather than simple manufacturers.
Mr Joost Vantomme (Smart Mobility Director, ACEA / OICA) spoke about the tremendous momentum for networked and automated cars which could improve safety, traffic efficiency, mobility, and resource allocation. He further noted that safety is the highest priority and that the industry therefore has no right to fail in terms of developing new technology.
He welcomed the general safety regulation of the EU and the WP 29’s draft resolutions on cybersecurity for vehicles and over-the-air (OAR) systems and encouraged policy-makers to further review, adapt, and harmonise all relevant regulations. Additionally, he spoke about the need to upgrade and adapt physical and digital road infrastructure for automated driving and to continue performing large-scale and cross border tests of automated systems.
Vantomme further identified new policy challenges emerging through the rise of connectivity for automation, data and privacy protection, and liability rules among others. Regarding regulations of the data economy, Vantomme said that there is no need for ex ante regulations and that new markets and innovations would provide a way to go ahead.
Mr David Ward (President & CEO of Global NCAP, President & CEO of the Towards Zero Foundation) said that widespread use of automated vehicles (AVs) can be expected by 2040.
Ward warned against overestimating the effects that AVs will have on road safety and mentioned that studies about accidents only focus on accidents which have been caused by humans and not how many accidents have been avoided due to human intervention. AVs will certainly lower the rate of accidents, but it is not possible to say that all accidents that have been caused by humans will be avoidable thanks to AV technology.
Ward mentioned the importance of making automated assistance systems mandatory while waiting for the full-scale market entry of fully automated cars. These systems can already increase the safety of drivers and will prepare the users for future mobility and build trust in the technology. Additionally, he highlighted the importance of using the same names for certain technologies and for standardising them to avoid misleading users about the actual use and abilities of a certain technology.
Mr Hiroyuki Inomata (Director for International Affairs Office, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan) emphasised the work conducted by the WP 29. He underlined the importance of harmonising regulations and standards, given that cars and networked vehicles are a global commodity.
He further mentioned that challenges revolve around how AVs can be rolled out without toning down on safety mechanisms and said that market entry of AVs will need to be carefully prepared.
The event was co-organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The co-chairs Mr Bilel Jamoussi (Chief, SGD, TSB, ITU) and Walter Nissler (Chief of Section, Senior Economic Affairs Officer, UNECE) made opening remarks before inviting Mr Jean Todt (UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Road Safety, President, FIA) to give his keynote address. Todt mentioned the rapid evolution of the discussions around automated cars and that some expect the first of these cars to be deployed within the next five years. He spoke about the security aspect that networked cars might provide, given that there are still over 1.35 million road deaths per year, despite the increased adoption of road safety regulations. Todt also pointed out that the new technology must be carefully thought through in order to avoid it becoming part of the problem. Therefore, developers and manufacturers should also keep in mind the safety of people around the cars, such as those on foot and bicycles. According to Todt, networked cars also bear the potential of reducing traffic congestion and have a positive impact on the environment since new shared car riding business models will arise and reduce the number of users driving alone in their cars.
Additionally, Todt highlighted the importance of public private partnerships in the field, given that networked cars will provide massive amounts of data which will be exposed to cybersecurity issues. For this reason, manufacturers and governments must find viable solutions to these new challenges.
In his opening address, Mr Houlin Zhao (Secretary General, International Telecommunication Union (ITU)) explained that the symposium was created almost 15 years ago after the realisation that information and communications technology (ICTs) can contribute to road safety.
Zhao noted that the automotive industry is at an important point of its evolution, and at the centre of its transition into automated and networked driving. He further pointed out that with the arrival of technologies such as 5G, the ITU’s work is now more important for automotive industries than ever. He predicted that the future of mobility will be crafted by a collaboration of the public and private sectors and that a new market segment will appear in the intersection between ICTs and automobiles.
Ms ​Olga Algayerova (Executive Secretary, UNECE) said that developments surrounding networked cars will disrupt mobility and technology. According to Algayerova, mobility will occur without significant accidents and reduced emissions thus creating a safe and secure transportation method.
She pointed out that there will be many further technological advancements which will need to be harnessed by regulators. Algayerova welcome the increased collaboration between UNECE and the ITU which helps breaking down silos and facilitates the finding of comprehensive regulations and standards. She explained that UNECE hosts the Working Party 29 (WP 29) which sets global regulatory frameworks for transportation and mobility and that its co-operation with the ITU has already achieved successes in terms of cybersecurity.
Finally, she noted that innovation and technological issues must also be driven by women.
The launch of the Geneva Digital Talks series – organised by the Canton of Geneva – gathered around 80 representatives from the technical, governmental, business, not-for-profit and academic communities. The speakers included representatives from the Canton of Geneva, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the EPFL’s School of Computer and Communication Sciences, Deutor Cyber Security Solutions, the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), the University of Geneva, FONGIT (Geneva's high-tech start-up incubator), and the Geneva Internet Platform (GIP). The key messages of the launch event revolved around the need to understand cybersecurity in a multidisciplinary way.
At the start of the discussions, we were reminded that Geneva is, above all, a platform of dialogue and a place for finding sustainable solutions. Moreover, Geneva has a reputation as an ecosystem for stakeholder engagement, where the digital discussions can be people-focused.
Security is key to modern societies, but it was not originally built into the Internet. Addressing it now is comparable to repairing a plane while flying it. To understand the issue, the discussions followed the journey of an Internet data packet that crosses national borders, that is vital to digital economy and innovation, and is ultimately crucial in high-level negotiations impacting a number of sectors.
The interplay between the Silicon Valley as a place of technological development and social disruption, and Geneva as a constructive, human rights-oriented policy space, set the tone of the discussion. Recent calls from the private sector to advance discussions on a cyber treaty, brought forward the need to have a shared understanding of the vulnerabilities, issues and prospects of cyberspace. If a cyber incident amounts to a kinetic attack, international law applies, but for everything in between, there is a ‘grey zone’, just as there is for a distinction between ‘civilian’ and ‘military’ in digital terms. Previously, key conventions have been negotiated with the involvement of non-state actors in equally sensitive fields, such as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention.
On its journey, the Internet data packet is first tested physically: the integrity and correctness of the code are essential, as there is no bug-free software or liability for software in place. While we are getting better at writing and verifying software in safety-critical applications, trust in the ability of others, who are unknown to us, to fix it is gradually eroding if we can no longer distinguish between good and bad intentions.
To diminish the risks of interference and misuse, the Internet data packet should be protected by a community that understands infrastructure, relevant technology and invests in security. Suggestions were made to eliminate the prevalent ignorance and complacency about security, also distinguishing between IT security and cybersecurity. The latter concerns a criminal network with a goal. Effective co-operation needs to include users (to notify about breaches) and providers (to react to vulnerabilities or breaches) working together. Regulation can also be used as a carrot to incentive and a stick to sanction those who do not comply, thus increasing the overall level of security.
When it comes to the framework for state action, different instruments are currently deployed. In addition to the guidelines provided by the UN Group of Governmental Experts in their 2015 report (11 voluntary norms), international law, and in particular the UN Charter, includes provisions on the use of force, the interference in the domestic affairs of states, the peaceful means to solving conflicts, but also, self-defense. International customary law covers state responsibility, even when using proxies, and due diligence for international wrongful acts that apply to digital space. In international humanitarian law, if the kinetic dimension is reached in cyberattacks, cyber means amount to armed conflict. Moreover, the human rights obligations of states apply online, as they do offline (e.g. freedom of expression). Confidence building measures, such as the ones put forward by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), represent additional means to strengthen collaboration at the global level. With this multi-layered framework in place, it is important to build awareness and strengthen the capacity of states to understand and apply it before new binding rules are discussed.
When discussing the attribution of risk and responsibility, there is a danger of substantive fragmentation: we have global technologies, but local laws and there is an overlap of regulations and sets of conflicting norms, that may be detrimental or counterproductive. The question here is whether we can move from the Geneva Digital Talks to policies, or even to the Geneva Digital Courts to address the needs of regulators. As the birthplace of international arbitration, Geneva has a unique role to play in the attempt to solve Internet-related disputes.
From a digital economy perspective, the Internet data packet has recently been carrying more and more sensitive records, including health and personal data, or social security information. With the advent of the Internet of Things (IoT), we will move from cyber to digital security in a much broader sense. Every second, 95 passwords are stolen around the world, showing that security by itself is no longer enough. There is a need to move from security by reaction to security by interaction. The Internet giants that operate most online services need to be brought into the conversation about norms, key responsibilities and regulation.
The Geneva Digital Talks will continue with a series of events in the build-up to the Internet Governance Forum. The focus of the GDT will be set on the following aspects, identifying key competencies available in Geneva: technological, legal, social and political.
More information on the GDT and online exchanges can be found here: https://www.giplatform.org/geneva-digital-talks.
The eleventh Symposium of the Future Networked Car took place on 9 March 2017, during the 87th edition of the Geneva International Motor Show. The Symposium was jointly organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The main objective of the event was to offer a platform for a fruitful discussion among different stakeholders – vehicle manufacturers, governments and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industries – on the future of vehicle communication and automated driving.
The session started with opening remarks from Mr Malcolm Johnson, Vice Secretary-General at the ITU, who stressed the importance of bringing together multiple stakeholders in order to foster technological innovation. In particular, he underlined the crucial role of the ITU as a UN-mandated agency that has successfully brought together and facilitated the convergence between two communities: industry and ICT sectors. The Symposium has seen growing participation in the last years, and has attracted more than 170 participants in 2017.
Ms Eva Molnar, Director of the Sustainable Transport Division of UNECE, joined Mr Johnson in stressing the importance of co-operation, not only between different industry sectors, but also between different agencies – as is the case with the ITU and UNECE. In particular, her speech approached vehicle automation from a regulatory perspective: she reasoned on the relevance of the existing legal conventions vis-à-vis the latest technological changes and pushed for the development of harmonised regulations.
The event comprised five thematic panels, each discussing a specific aspect of vehicle automation.
The Executive Roundtable reflected on the advantages and challenges that automatic driving will bring to individuals and societies once such technology is spread on a larger scale. All speakers talked about the necessity of harmonising the standards regulating such technology among different countries.
In particular, Mr Anders Eugensson, Director of the Governmental Affairs Department at Volvo Car Group, analysed the benefits of automated driving for individuals in terms of costs, liability and accuracy of data. With the development of such technology, customers would purchase automated driving packages that would cost less than a car. Moreover, he considered that cars will operate autonomously, and, in case of accidents, the responsibility would not rely directly on customers. Finally, thanks to cloud connectivity technology, the data available to the car system will be more accurate.
The Second Panel reflected on the benefits of fifth generation mobile networks or wireless systems (5G) for the development of automated driving. The speakers agreed on the crucial role of 5G technology for automated vehicles, especially in terms of connectivity and communication among units. Mr Peter Vermaat, Chair of the Connected Vehicle Working Group at the Wireless World Research Forum, considered that as opposed to a cloud computing type of connectivity (i.e. storing and accessing data over the Internet), Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing (interconnected communication among peers, i.e. automated vehicles) allows for increased safety and improved efficiency of communication, and reduces the need for infrastructures.
The Third Panel discussed how Artificial Intelligence (AI) will change current transport systems. All the speakers built their discussions on the benefits of automated driving discussed by the previous panellists. Furthermore, they focused mainly on the possible risks to individuals from the deployment of AI. They assessed such risks in terms of security (protection from cyber-attacks), personal data protection (privacy concerns) and social economic externalities (loss of jobs in the car industry or transportation sectors).
The Fourth Panel focused on the relationship between connected vehicles and automated driving. The panellists discussed the co-dependency of connectivity and automated driving: having accurate communication systems among vehicles is crucial for the development of automated driving systems on a larger scale. David Holecek, Director of the Connected Products and Services Division at Volvo Car Group, concluded that connectivity, autonomous driving and AI are the cornerstones that will develop the concept of fully autonomous cars rather than autonomous driving in the future.
The Fifth Panel concluded the session by focusing on the cybersecurity threats to automotive systems. The speakers discussed the consequences that connectivity has in terms of individuals’ security in particular. Based on an interconnected system, automated vehicles operate in a constantly-hostile environment, susceptible to hackers’ attacks, resulting in financial cyber ransom, car theft and loss of control over the vehicle.
The survey, which polled 9,000 individuals from nine countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States), offers insights into how end users see the evolution of smart homes, as well as into users’ concerns regarding the security and privacy risks associated with IoT connected home devices.
The guide explores risks and opportunities associated with the Internet of Things, and provides a framework with recommendations for securing the IoT.
The document provides guidelines for public and private organisations when plannins and organising the selection and validation of smart city technologies. It describes the types of testing and assessments to consider in order to select the most secure vendors and technologies.
The document provides guidance for the secure implementation of Internet of Things (IoT)-based systems. It provides an overview of IoT security challenges threats to individuals and organisations, and outlines several security control mechanisms that could be used to mitigate such challenges and threats.
Platform-based E-commerce: What is at Stake for MSMEs?
Many sessions at IGF 2016 addressed challenges and opportunities associated with the Internet of Things. The IoT can contribute to achieving the SDGs (Harnessing IoT to Realize the SDGs: What’s Required? - WS35), through applications in areas such as smart cities (ICTs for Smart and Sustainable City - WS69), agriculture, and autonomous devices (Internet of Things for Sustainable Growth - WS157). But multistakeholder efforts are needed to address challenges related to security of devices, privacy and data protection, interoperability and standardisation (The Network of Networked Things: Finding the Internet in IoT - WS170), and ethical and societal implications (Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things).

References: Art. 36
 Art. 36
 Art. 36
 Art. 36
 Art. 36
 art. 36
 Art. 36