Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
AVs TRUST MANAGEMENT - Coggle Diagram
AVs TRUST MANAGEMENT
REMOTE CONTROL
control of the vehicle by an operator, who is located off-site
teleoperation can perform driving task without passenger intervention and attains its human assistance is through remote control
-
requires high reliability, high throughput, low latency, high bandwith -> feasible with 5G technology, but implementation teleoperation in areas with lower cellular coverage is not possible
-
the major role of the operator is steering, accelerating, braking, shifting, maveuvering of the indicators, or the operator helps the system making the best decisions
REPUTATION
-
PRINCIPLE
for each vehicle within its subnetwork, a road-side unit will iterate through all of the transactions that the vehicle has participated in
includes transactions in which the vehicle was the sender, as well as transactions in which the vehicle was a witness vehicle and provided a reputation score
RSU quantifies the reputation of each vehicle by calculating two scores: operating and reporting credibility
the recency of transactions can be used, too
-
-
IMPROVEMENT
-
DQ value is calculated by evaluating the agents technical characteristics in an objective way at the initial time (the accuracy of the location sensor, the availability of updates in the software)
this technique increases accuracy and recall rates in detecting agents that might supply incorrect data and facilitates their removal from the agent group consideration right from the beginning
-
TRANSPARENCY
-
humans naturally want to understand critical decisions of cars in specific scenarios to build trust in using them
CURRENT STATE
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union initiated guidelines to promote the “right of an explanation” principle for users (effective since 2018)
-
-
ATTACK RESISTANCE
TYPES
-
physical-access attacks (falsifying input data, adversarial attack)
DEFENCE
use of secure communications, firewalls, device authentication
-
-
-
CURRENT STATE
-
there is no evidence to show AVs on the markets can defend against novel attacks that the research community found
sensing components and connection mechanisms offered improvements in safety, but have also created more opportunities for ccyberattacks
e.g. McAfee demonstrated that Tesla's camera for vision was successfully fooled by an adversarial attack by putting a tape on the speed limit signboard, which made Tesla read 35 as 85 mph
CERTIFICATION
CURRENT STATE
physical testing alone is no more sufficient to evaluate the AVs performance in uncountable situations in real world
-
-
GENERAL IDEA
vehicle authentication through digital certificates can help in deciding whether to rely on the information provided by a vehicle
hijacked vehicles could send misinformation with their real identity -> other trust mechanisms and reputation are needed
proposed solution
-
-
-
the certification entity collects information, and if a reputation of a vehicle is below certain threshold, entity revokes the certificate (until the SW of this vehicle is reset to its initial state by the manufacturer)
hijacked vehicles will be discarded and all its communication will be ignored by other vehicles (e.g. fake information regarding traffic)
LIABILITY
-
POSSIBILITIES
liability sharing
-
-
If a reasonable person under the same circumstances could have caused the accident despite following precautions, then the driver cannot be negligent – and therefore is not liable
strict liability
producer
if the accident in which the vehicle was involved was caused by a construction defect or its programming
it is the producer who has the economic advantage of placing the products on the market, and therefore must ensure they are in good conditions and function properly
owner/user
if the owner has the advantage of using it (no driving license, sleep, handicap, etc.), he should also bear the disadvantages (he would be liable in the same way as in case of a mechanical breakdown on a traditional car)
using an AV would be a dangerous activity, potentially causing damages
according to the law, the victim has to prove that the AV was defective in order to blame the producer, which might be difficult for the victim
special regime should be created which, in case of doubt, would establish the presumption that the damage caused by the AV results from defects in its production -> a presumption rebuttable by the producer, in which case the vehicle keeper would be liable
the producer is a strong party - economically and technically, and because it has access to all information regarding the design and construction of vehicles, it will more easily rebut this presumption than the car owner will be able to prove the opposite
CURRENT STATE
European Commission considers that the Directive on producer liability should be revised to accomodate the specificities that arise in the area of AI.
-
-
Germany: According to the law, AVs must install a black box to record the entire journey to determine liability during collisions.
JUSTIFICATION
POSSIBILITIES
ethical egoism
algorithms are always set up to promote the interests of the passenger in the driverless car - all self-driving cars must act in the interest of their passengers over anything else
-
otherwise - Who would be willing to pay for a car that would sacrifice his life to save three children?
but regulating conflicts involving several people and based on the single criterion of maximum benefit to the individual interests of each person is unacceptable
lesser evil
the mission of criminal law is to ensure a harmonious, fair, and stable separation of the spheres of freedom over which each person exercises sovereignty
contemporary criminal law is not based on a collectivist principle, even in situations of necessity
-
breach of a right is not justified simply by the advantages it might bring to society as a whole, however important they may be
-
MOTIVATION
-
self-driving cars will be involved in emergency situations -> new ethical and additional legal challenge: self-driving cars must be programmed to respond to situations of necessity where breaking the regulations, or causing damage are inevitable
vehicles must have patterns of behaviour in situations of necessity where safeguarding a specific interest unavoidably demands another to be injured
it is possible to provide a legally acceptable outcome to any dilemma, without needing to resort to arguments for exoneration in order not to punish whoever takes responsibility for the solution found for the dilemma caused by the car
clearly defined rule must be established that aims to be generally valid for the dilemmas that may arise