Back to Index of Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

Australia

I. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Australia

According to a news article published in January 2018, a survey of Australian senior executives and IT decision-makers found that “almost nine in 10 business leaders at large Australian businesses having deployed artificial intelligence (AI) technologies within their organisations in some form,” with “[f]ifty-one percent of Australian organisations . . . deploying AI in the context of machine learning, 48 percent . . . looking at automated reasoning, 47 percent at robotics, 44 percent at knowledge representation, and 39 percent Natural Language Processing.”[1]

In terms of the public sector, the Australian government signed a deal with IBM in July 2018 for the company to “provide a $1 billion five-year technology service to accelerate the uptake of blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing in the public sector.”[2] The deal was led by the Digital Transformation Agency, which was formally established as a separate agency in October 2016 to “guide, oversee and drive the Government’s ambitious digital and ICT agendas.”[3] The federal government aims to be one of the top three digital governments in the world by 2025.[4]

II. Federal Government Investment and AI Framework Development

The 2018–19 Australian federal government budget included an AU$29.9 million (about US$21.7 million) funding package over four years “to develop the artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities of Australian businesses and workers.”[5] The package is comprised of four elements:[6] development of AI skills through the funding of postgraduate scholarships and the “development of online resources to engage students and support teachers to deliver AI content in the Australian curriculum”;[7] development of a Technology Roadmap to “inform government investment in artificial intelligence by identifying global opportunities in both artificial intelligence and machine learning, and any barriers to adoption in Australia”;[8] development of a national AI Ethics Framework and Standards Framework to address ethics for adopting such technologies in Australia;[9] and AU$25 million in funding for a Cooperative Research Centers Program project area, which will focus specifically on AI.[10]

In the area of ethics and human rights implications of AI, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner published the Guide to Data Analytics and the Australian Privacy Principles in March 2018.[11] In addition, the Australian Human Rights Commission discussed AI in a July 2018 issues paper on human rights and technology[12] that asks “how Australian law should protect human rights in the development and use of new technologies.”[13] The issues paper was published at the commencement of a major three-year project on this topic, which will see a discussion paper published in early 2019 and final recommendations delivered in late 2019. A website has been established in order to provide information on the project and engage the public through consultation processes.[14]

III. Government Actions in Particular Areas

A. Autonomous Vehicles

In May 2017, the National Transport Commission (NTC) published the Guidelines for Trials of Automated Vehicles in Australia .[15] It subsequently also developed national enforcement guidelines to clarify how the concepts, contained in the Australian Road Rules, of “control” and “proper control” should apply to vehicles with automated functions.[16]

To date, three Australian states have enacted legislation related to enabling trials of autonomous vehicles.[17] Although each of the laws differ in approach, they include approval processes and insurance requirements related to conducting trials, as well as covering safety management plans and data collection.[18] Other jurisdictions also have projects or initiatives associated with testing cooperative and automated vehicles.[19]

In May 2018, the NTC published a policy paper that recommended national legislative reform to

• provide clarity about the situations when an automated driving system (ADS), rather than a human driver, may drive a vehicle[;]
• ensure there is a legal entity that can be held responsible for the ADS when it is operating[; and]
• establish any  new  legal  obligations  that  may  be  required  for  users  of  automated vehicles[.][20]

The reforms are part of a broader national reform program that “aims to put end-to-end regulation in place by 2020 to support the safe commercial deployment and operation of automated vehicles at all levels of automation.”[21] As part of this work, in 2018 the NTC also published a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) that “details the legislative options to underpin the safety assurance system to support the safe, commercial deployment and operation of automated vehicles at all levels of automation.”[22] It has also released discussion papers on regulating government access to C-ITS (Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems) and automated vehicle data, and on motor accident injury insurance and automated vehicles.[23]

B. Autonomous Weapons Systems

A 2015 inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the potential use by the Australian Defence Force of unmanned air, maritime, and land platforms resulted in recommendations that included

that the Australian Defence Force acquire armed unmanned platforms when the capability requirement exists and the Australian Government make a policy statement regarding their use. This policy statement will:

• affirm that armed unmanned platforms will be used in accordance with  international law;
• commit that armed unmanned platforms will only be operated by the Australian Defence Force personnel; and
• include appropriate transparency measures governing the use of armed unmanned platforms.[24]

The government’s response to this recommendation included a statement that,

[i]f the Government decides to acquire armed unmanned systems, Defence will develop policy and doctrine concerning their use. All Australian Defence capabilities, including unmanned platforms, will continue to be operated in accordance with Australian domestic law and consistent with Australia’s international legal obligations (in particular the provisions of the law of armed conflict).[25]

At the international level, Australia’s statements at meetings of the GGE on LAWS have included the following:

As a party to Additional Protocol I, Australia fully supports and adheres to the obligation to undertake a review of any new weapon, means or method of warfare to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by International Humanitarian Law or other international law by which Australia is bound.

We recognise the potential complexity of reviewing weapons systems that include increasingly automated functions and look forward to discussing this further. The complexity of weapons reviews is destined to increase as artificial intelligence and machine learning evolves. However, Australia remains committed to the existing legal framework for reviewing new weapons under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I.[26] [November 2017]

We recognise the potential value which autonomy brings to military and civilian technologies. Systems with advanced artificial intelligence and enhanced autonomous functions are becoming increasingly more prevalent in both contexts. In particular, we understand that militaries throughout the world are incorporating ever more automation into their systems. This is not new or surprising. We welcome discussions on how such technological advances in weapon systems will comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), increase precision, and support commanders fulfil their obligations to IHL on the battlefield.[27] [April 2018]

In March 2018, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a letter to a group of AI experts who had called on the government to take a “firm global stand” against LAWS that remove meaningful human control,[28] stated that the government “considers it would be premature to support a pre-emptive ban on autonomous weapons systems” and that it “will continue to develop its policies on artificial intelligence and LAWS within the framework of [its] international obligations, especially international law.”[29]

China

I. National AI Strategies

A. Long-Term AI Development Plan

On July 20, 2017, China’s State Council released the Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (Development Plan).[30] The Development Plan sets forth long-term strategic goals for AI development in China, concluding in 2030. It contains “guarantee measures,” such as developing a regulatory system and strengthening intellectual property protection, in promoting AI development.

The Development Plan is comprised of three stages, concluding in 2020, 2025, and 2030, respectively, and sets forth goals concerning building a regulatory framework and ethics framework for each stage, as follows:

• By 2020, China’s overall technology and application of AI would catch up with the globally advanced levels. AI ethical norms, policies, and laws and regulations would be initially established in some areas.
• By 2025, China would achieve major breakthroughs in basic AI theories, and become world- leading in some technologies and applications. AI legal, ethical, and policy systems would be initially established, and AI security assessment and control capabilities would be achieved.
• By 2030, China’s AI theories, technologies, and applications would achieve world-leading levels, making China the world’s primary AI innovation center. AI legal, ethical, and policy systems would be further improved.[31]

The Development Plan proposes to “form an institutional arrangement to adapt to the development of AI, build an open and inclusive international environment, and reinforce the social foundation of AI development.”[32] The specific guarantee measures in this regard include the following:

• Developing regulatory and ethical frameworks: This measure aims to strengthen research on legal, ethical, and social issues related to AI, and establish regulatory and ethical frameworks to ensure the healthy development of AI. Specifically, China would conduct research on legal issues related to AI applications, including confirmation of civil and criminal responsibility, protection of privacy and property, and information security utilization.[33]
• Providing tax incentives for AI enterprises: The aim of this key policy is to support the development of AI enterprises by providing tax incentives and research and development deductions to high-tech enterprises.[34]
• Formulating technical standards: This would see the formulation of technical standards concerning, for example, network security and privacy protection. Chinese AI enterprises would be encouraged to participate in or lead the development of international AI standards.[35]
• Strengthening the protection of intellectual property (IP): This would promote the IP protection of AI innovations and promote usage of new AI technology by  establishing  AI  public patent pools.[36]
• Establishing the AI security supervision and evaluation system: the intent is to build an early warning mechanism of AI security monitoring and an open and transparent AI supervision system. China would promote self-discipline of the AI industry and enterprises, and increase punishments for data abuse, violations  of  personal  privacy,  and  unethical  activities  in  this regard.[37]

B. Three-Year Action Plan (2018–2020)

To implement the first stage of the Development Plan, in December 2017, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) issued the Three-Year Action Plan for Promoting Development of a New Generation Artificial Intelligence Industry (Action Plan).[38]

According to the Action Plan, China would focus on the following seven fields in the three years from 2018–2020:

• Intelligent network vehicles
• Intelligent service robots
• Intelligent unmanned aerial vehicles
• Medical imaging diagnosis systems
• Video image identification systems
• Intelligent voice interactive systems
• Intelligent translation systems[39]

The Action Plan also proposes carrying out research on AI-relevant policies, laws, and regulations as a method for creating a good environment for the healthy development of the AI industry, although it does not elaborate any specific measures.[40]

II. Autonomous Vehicles

On April 11, 2018, the MIIT, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), and the Ministry of Transport (MOT) jointly issued a set of trial rules that pave the way for road testing of autonomous vehicles in China (National Rules).[41] The National Rules, which took effect on May 1, 2018, contain requirements for test vehicles and test drivers.[42] The Rules also specify the testing procedures. For example, a test driver must always sit in the driver’s seat of the test vehicle during the test, monitor the status of the test vehicle and the driving environment, and get ready to take over the vehicle anytime.[43] Local authorities at the provincial level will formulate implementation rules applicable in their own areas.[44]

According to the National Rules, a temporary license plate is required for road testing of autonomous vehicles.[45] As of October 2018, at least eight cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Chongqing, had published their local rules and started issuing temporary license plates for the road testing of autonomous vehicles in their areas.[46]

III. Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS)

On April 13, 2018, China’s delegation to the UN GGE on LAWS reportedly announced China’s desire to negotiate and conclude a new protocol for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to ban the use of fully autonomous lethal weapons systems.[47]

China’s latest position paper for the GGE, dated April 11, 2018, indicates China believes that, at present, LAWS still lacks a clear and agreed definition and many countries believe such weapon systems do not exist.[48] China therefore supports reaching an agreement on the specific definition of LAWS. It called on “all countries to exercise precaution, and to refrain, in particular, from any indiscriminate use against civilians.”[49] The position paper also states that it is necessary, “when exploring LAWS-related legal issues, to have full consideration of the applicability of general legal norms to LAWS.”[50] Concerning emerging technologies such as AI, China “believes that the impact of emerging technologies deserve objective, impartial and full discussion.”[51] It states that “[u]ntil such discussions have been done, there should not be any pre-set premises or prejudged outcome which may impede the development of AI technology.”[52]

IV. Facial Recognition

China is reportedly building a video surveillance system with cutting-edge technologies such as facial recognition. According to the 2018 annual report of the United States Congressional- Executive Commission on China, as of 2017, the system consisted of twenty million cameras with many having facial recognition capabilities. In addition to fighting crime, a primary function of the system is to maintain social stability, such as preventing protests and demonstrations.[53] The country aims to complete a nationwide facial recognition and surveillance network by 2020 with “100 percent surveillance and facial recognition coverage and total unification of its existing databases across the country.”[54]

During 2018, the MPS was reportedly developing a facial recognition database “with the power to identify any one of its 1.3 billion citizens within three seconds,” in conjunction with a security company based in Shanghai.[55] According to the news report, the database can be connected to surveillance camera networks and will use cloud facilities to connect with data storage and processing centers distributed across the country.[56]

In cities such as Shenzhen, in Guangdong Province, the traffic police have introduced facial recognition technology and LED screens to shame and deter jaywalkers. Cameras on the streets capture images of people illegally crossing the road and the facial recognition software then identifies the citizens by comparing their images against a database. Photos of those people alongside their family names and part of their ID numbers are displayed on screens.[57] In addition, in early 2018 it was reported that police officers in Zhengzhou, Henan Province, were using glasses with facial-recognition software to help search for wanted criminals.[58]

Back to Top

India

I. Background

According to a report published by the Brookings Institution, the Indian AI industry “has seen growth in this period [2012–2017], with a total of $150 million invested in more than 400 companies over the past five years. Most of these investments have come in the last two years, when investment nearly doubled from $44 million in 2016 to $77 million in 2017.”[59]

India currently has no laws or government-issued guidelines regulating AI. Instead, the government developed a number of national strategies or road maps related to AI in 2018.[60]

II. National Initiatives

A. Report of the Artificial Intelligence Task Force

On August 24, 2017, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce constituted an eighteen-member Task Force on AI for India’s Economic Transformation,[61] which is made up of experts, academics, and researchers/industry leaders, with the participation of governmental bodies/ministries (such as the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Department of Science and Technology, Unique Identification Authority of India, and Defence Research and Development Organization).[62] The task force completed its report in January 2018.[63]

The task force’s report looked at the “use of AI along with its major challenges, and possible solutions for each sector.”[64] It examined ten sectors, referred to as “domains of relevance to India.” These sectors were: Manufacturing, FinTech, Agriculture, Healthcare, Technology for the Differently-abled, National Security, Environment, Public Utility Services, Retail and Customer Relationship, and Education.[65] The task force made several recommendations to the government:

Noting that ‘AI should be seen as a scalable problem solver in India rather than only as a booster of economic growth’, the Task Force recommends: (a) the creation of an inter- ministerial National AI mission to coordinate AI-related activities in India; (b) enabling the setting up of digital data banks, marketplaces and exchanges to ensure availability of cross-industry data and information; (c) participating in the elaboration of operation standards for AI-based systems; (d) putting in place enabling policies to encourage and facilitate the development and deployment of AI-based products (such as data policies regarding ownership, sharing rights and usage, as well as tax incentives to support innovation); (e) elaborating an AI education strategy to develop human resources with necessary skills; (f) supporting reskilling of the current workforce; (g) participating in the international policy discussion on the governance of AI technologies; and (h) leveraging bilateral partnership on the development of AI solutions for social and economic problems and for sharing best practices in regulation.[66]

B. NITI Aayog Discussion Paper on a National AI Strategy

On February 1, 2018, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley stated that the government think-tank NITI Aayog “would lead the national programme on AI” and that “[the government is set to support startups and centres of excellence with respect to AI training and research activities.”[67]

The Committee of Secretaries held a meeting on February, 8, 2018, and tasked NITI Aayog with formulating a National Strategy Plan for AI “in consultation with Ministries and Departments concerned, academia and private sector.”[68] On June 4, 2018, NITI Aayog published a discussion paper on a National Strategy on Artificial Intelligence.[69] The discussion paper states that “[t]he strategy should strive to leverage AI for economic growth, social development and inclusive growth.”[70] It identified five sectors that could have the most social impact and which should be focused on: Healthcare, Agriculture, Education, Smart Cities/Infrastructure, Smart Mobility, and Transportation.[71] Experts have noted that the proposed strategy stands out due to its “focus on the social sector.”[72]

The discussion paper provides over thirty policy recommendations, including to “invest in scientific research, encourage reskilling and training, accelerate the adoption of AI across the value chain, and promote ethics, privacy, and security in AI.”[73]Tim Dutton, an AI policy researcher, provides a summary of some of these policy recommendations:

Its flagship initiative is a two-tiered integrated strategy to boost research in AI. First, new Centres of Research Excellence in AI (COREs) will focus on fundamental research. Second, the COREs will act as technology feeders for the International Centres for Transformational AI (ICTAIs), which will focus on creating AI-based applications in domains of societal importance. In the report, NITI Aayong identifies healthcare, agriculture, education, smart cities, and smart mobility as the priority sectors that will benefit the most socially from applying AI. The report also recommends setting up a consortium of Ethics Councils at each CORE and ICTAI, developing sector specific guidelines on privacy, security, and ethics, creating a National AI Marketplace to increase market discovery and reduce time and cost of collecting data, and a number of initiatives to help the overall workforce acquire skills. Strategically, the government wants to establish India as an “AI Garage,” meaning that if a company can deploy an AI in India, it will then be applicable to the rest of the developing world.[74]

C. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Committees

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has established four committees to help encourage research in AI. They are headed by “directors of Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Nasscom and eminent researchers”[75] and include the following:

i. Committee on platforms and data for AI,
ii. Committee on leveraging AI for identifying National Missions in key sectors,
iii. Committee on mapping technological capabilities, key policy enablers, skilling, re- skilling and R&D
iv. Committee on cybersecurity, safety, legal and ethical issues.[76]

The four committees are “presently studying AI in context of citizen centric services; data platforms; skilling, reskilling and R&D; and legal, regulatory and cybersecurity perspectives.”[77]

D. AI and Defense

In February 2018, the government of India established a multi-stakeholder task force (“comprising the Government, Services, Academia, Industry, Professionals and Start-ups”) to study the strategic and national security implications of AI for India. The task force submitted its report to the Minister of Defense on June 30, 2018. The report is said to include

recommendations relating to making India a significant power of AI in defence, specifically in the area of aviation, naval, land systems, cyber, nuclear and biological warfare including both defensive and offensive needs including counter AI needs; recommendations for policy and institutional interventions required to regulate and encourage robust AI based technologies for defence sector; working with start-ups/commercial industry and recommendations for appropriate strategies of working with start ups.[78]

Ambassador Amandeep Singh Gill of India was chair of both the 2017 and 2018 meetings of the GGE on LAWS. India’s position on LAWS[79] is that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is the “relevant forum to address the issue of the possible expansion of the autonomous dimension of lethal weapons systems,”[80] and it “advised for balancing the lethality of these weapons with military necessity—adopting a wait-and-watch approach  to  how  the  conversation evolves.”[81]

III. Regulatory Framework and Proposed Changes

A. Privacy Challenges

India currently does not have a comprehensive legal framework for data protection. On July 27, 2018, the government of India’s Committee of Experts (also known as the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee) released a Draft Protection of Personal Data Bill[82] along with an accompanying report titled A Free and Fair Digital Economy Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians.[83] The Bill, like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, establishes a set of rights but does not appear to include rights to protect against automated decision-making.[84] According to an analysis by the Centre for Internet and Society, “the Bill creates a framework to address harms arising out of AI, but does not empower the individual to decide how their data is processed and remains silent on the issue of ‘black box’ algorithms” and is “focused on placing the responsibility on companies to prevent harm.”[85]

The Committee’s report states that

[t]he second group of rights relate to the right to object to automated decision-making and to access the logic behind it. In our view, these rights, again a response by the EU to emerging challenges from Big Data and AI, have a legitimate rationale. They are aimed at curbing harms due to prejudice and discrimination in output data owing to evaluative determinations without human review. The solution provided by this right is to simply involve a step of human review, which is not per se immune from prejudice. This is a change pertaining to the operational structure of an organisation. Such a change may be necessitated, provided it is carefully tailored to specific organisations and the nature of their processing activity. This, in our view, is better achieved through an accountability framework which requires certain data fiduciaries, which may be making evaluative decisions through automated means, to set up processes that weed out discrimination. This is a constituent element of privacy by design which should be implemented by entities proactively, audited periodically and monitored by the DPA in case there are examples of unlawful processing. At the same time, such a model does not entirely denude the individual of agency. If discrimination has ensued as a result of per se lawful, yet discriminatory automated processing, individuals are always at liberty to go to courts for breach of fiduciary duties. Thus, the interests underlying such rights, can be more efficaciously achieved by an ex ante accountability model.[86]

B. Automated Vehicles

The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India lists legislative subjects that are in the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the central government or state governments. The regulation of motor vehicles in India appears to be under the concurrent jurisdiction of both the central and state governments.[87] Motor vehicle road safety is regulated by the central level by the Motor Vehicles Act[88] and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules.[89] State governments have their own laws and policies. The current Motor Vehicle Act does not appear to allow for automated vehicles (AVs) or AV testing. However, amending legislation, which was passed in the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) on April 10, 2017, but is still pending before the upper house chamber, the Rajya Sabha, includes an exemption that may allow testing of AVs:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, in order to promote innovation and research and development in the fields of vehicular engineering, mechanically propelled vehicles and transportation in general, the Central Government may exempt certain types of mechanically propelled vehicles from the application of the provisions of this Act.[90]

At the end of July 2018, the Minister of Road Transport and Highways was reported to have said that “[w]e won’t allow driverless cars in India. I am very clear on this. We won’t allow any technology that takes away jobs. In a country where you have unemployment, you can’t have a technology that ends up taking people’s jobs.”[91]

IV. AI and Facial Recognition

State police forces across India are working with private companies to deploy AI-assisted facial or image recognition algorithms and predictive policing tools to detect and prevent crimes.[92]

Back to Top

Indonesia

Indonesian entities are reportedly leaders in the adoption of AI in the ASEAN region, with a recent survey showing that nearly 25% of organizations have done so.[93] In October 2018, Indonesia’s first AI research center was launched.[94] The government itself is using AI, such as in its approach to combatting hoaxes and false information online.[95]

The government reportedly produced a digital strategy in 2017, with a focus on supporting small and medium enterprises to be “digitally empowered.”[96]

In August 2018, the President of Indonesia stated that the country’s automotive sector needed to take note of developments in the global automotive industry, including the challenges arising from the disruption of technology such as autonomous vehicles and online transportation applications. With reference to autonomous vehicles, he stated that “we might have to redefine a car.”[97] There are currently no specific laws or regulations related to autonomous vehicles in Indonesia.[98]

Back to Top

Japan

The Strategic Council for AI Technology was established in April 2016 at the behest of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, to develop research and development goals and a roadmap for the industrialization of AI. Comprised of representatives from academia, industry, and government,[99] the Strategic Council released its Artificial Intelligence Technology Strategy in March 2017.[100] According to the Strategy, the Council acts as a control tower and manages five national research and development institutions that are under the jurisdictions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC); the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT); and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in order to promote research and development of AI technology. In addition to the three ministries, the Council coordinates with ministries that possess big data and have jurisdiction over industries that utilize AI, such as the Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program of the Cabinet Office; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, to promote the utilization and application of AI technology.[101] The Council has also formulated industrialization roadmaps for the three prioritized areas of “productivity,” “health, medical care, and welfare,” and “mobility.”[102] The Strategy also states that national institutions would develop infrastructure technology, foster skilled human resources, maintain public data, and support start-ups.[103] In August 2018, the Council issued an implementation plan for the strategy.[104]

According to a news article, the government is drafting a comprehensive rule on medical devices that utilize AI. The rule would prescribe that the ultimate responsibility for diagnosis remains with medical doctors and set safety standards for approval by the government.[105]

As a reference for private businesses, METI has formulated Contract Guidance on Utilization of AI and Data to summarize the issues and factors to be considered when businesses draft a contract on the development and utilization of AI-based software.[106] The Guidance suggests a new contract model that recognizes the importance of AI-related developers’ expertise and compensates them for it.[107]

Regarding the regulation of self-driving cars, the government has discussed changes to various laws to prepare for their utilization by 2020.[108] Testing of self-driving cars has been allowed in certain conditions.[109] In June 2017, the National Police Agency issued circular that allowed testing of remote control autonomous driving system upon permission.[110] The MLIT issued a report on an existing law concerning civil responsibility for traffic accidents involving self-driving cars in March 2018.[111]

Back to Top

Malaysia

In October 2017, the Malaysian government announced plans to develop a National AI Framework as an expansion of the existing National Big Data Analytics Framework.[112] The development of the framework will be led by the Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation. The government also stated that it would establish the Digital Transformation Acceleration Programme (D-TAP) and introduce a “Cloud First” strategy, in addition to its existing Malaysia Tech Entrepreneur Programme (M-TEP).[113]

In March 2018, the “Deputy Minister of International Trade and Industry (MITI) officiated the Towards Autonomous Technologies Conference 2018, a collaborative efforts [sic] between MIDA (Malaysian Investment Development Authority), CREST (Collaborative Research in Engineering, Science and Technology) and DRB-HICOM University held at the MIDA headquarters.”[114] The Deputy Minister stated Malaysia has “notable local companies and universities that have initiated several development projects related to autonomous vehicles and its related technologies.”[115] There are currently no specific laws or regulations related to autonomous vehicles in Malaysia.[116]

In November 2018, it was reported that the Malaysian government “will seek Japan’s assistance on investment in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry in the quest to take its technologies to a more advanced level.”[117]

Back to Top

New Zealand

I. Use of Artificial Intelligence in New Zealand

A number of businesses and other organizations in New Zealand are currently using and developing AI in different sectors, including agriculture,[118] legal services, and retail, according to one website that examines the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the country.[119]

Within government, the Ministry of Primary Industries has worked with Customs New Zealand; the Inland Revenue Department; and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, as well as a private IT company, “to find out whether AI has the potential to make it easier for businesses to interact with government in a multi-agency context.”[120] The AI Proof of Concept was partly inspired by the “opportunities presented by the Better Rules Initiative,” which

showcased “Human and Machine-consumable Rules” as a key component for the digital transformation of government. Better Rules worked across several government agencies to explore the ideas and practice of turning legislation into machine-consumable ‘digital rules’. This process found opportunities for government in machine consumable legislation to capture benefits from new technologies – such as artificial intelligence.[121]

The use of AI to assist digital navigation across government websites was demonstrated among other initiatives at a digital showcase in November 2018.[122]

II. Government Initiatives Related to AI

In 2013, the New Zealand government established Callaghan Innovation, a government entity that supports businesses through the provision of innovation and research and development services, and that seeks to “enhance the operation of New Zealand’s innovation ecosystem.”[123] In March 2018, it published a white paper on AI,[124] which “predicts how AI will affect [New Zealand’s] agriculture, digital, energy and health sectors within the next few years. It details how different AI technologies will disrupt each sector in  waves  and  showcases  local  examples  of  AI-  powered businesses.”[125]

Subsequently, in May 2018, a report commissioned by the AI Forum New Zealand was launched by the New Zealand government.[126] The report provides the “first current-state snapshot of New Zealand’s AI landscape, touching on the emerging uses of AI.”[127] Established in 2017, the AI Forum is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization funded by its members that “brings together New Zealand’s community of artificial intelligence technology innovators, end users, investor groups, regulators, researchers, educators, entrepreneurs and interested public to work together to find ways to use AI to help enable a prosperous, inclusive and thriving future for our nation.”[128]

Upon launching the report, the government stated that it would develop an action plan and ethical framework regarding AI. As a first step, it would formalize the government’s relationship with the interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies, which is a collaboration between Otago University and the New Zealand Law Foundation.[129] In early 2017, the Centre commenced a three-year project “to evaluate legal and policy implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for New Zealand.”[130] This project will investigate two key topics: predictive AI technologies in the criminal justice system and AI and employment.[131]

In the area of data analysis and technology, the government announced in May 2018 that it would undertake a project to “assess how government agencies use algorithms to analyse people’s data, to ensure transparency and fairness in decisions that affect citizens.”[132] It further stated that New Zealand “is leading the work with the UK, Israel, Estonia, South Korea, Canada and Uruguay working together to consider how digital technology impacts fundamental human rights and to share best practice about ways to tackle challenges.”[133]

The government has also appointed and funded a Data Futures Partnership, which aims to “[c]reate a competitive advantage by positioning New Zealand as a high-value, strongly inclusive, high- trust, and high-control data-sharing ecosystem.”[134] The group has published a draft document, A Path to Social Licence: Guidelines for Trusted Data Use,[135] as part of its “wider work programme to maximise the benefits of data for the public, companies, government agencies, and non- governmental organisations.”[136]

Other initiatives include the Principles for Safe and Effective Use of Data and Analytics, published in 2018 by the Privacy Commissioner and Government Chief Data Steward (who is the chief executive of Stats NZ), which are “intended to help agencies, and guide our thinking to data analytics activities, including algorithmic decision-making.”[137] Individual government agencies have also developed, or are in the process of developing, resources and policies related to privacy, human rights, and ethical impacts of using personal information and digital data tools, including the Ministry of Social Development[138] and the Social Investment Agency.[139]

III. Government Statements on Particular Technologies

A. Autonomous Vehicles

The government has not received any formal requests to test autonomous vehicles on public roads; however it states that

[t]here are no obvious legal barriers to the deployment of autonomous vehicles for testing in New Zealand. Unlike some countries, NZ law has no explicit requirement for a driver to be present. However, autonomous vehicles could raise issues about who is at fault if they were to crash.[140]

The government’s Intelligent Transport Systems Technology Action Plan 2014–18 includes the following action:

The Ministry of Transport, in conjunction with the NZ Transport Agency, will review transport legislation to clarify the legality of testing driverless cars in New Zealand. This will specifically consider the issues of liability associated with testing, but will not consider liability for general use.[141]

It further states as follows:

Internationally there is a great deal of thought being given to what laws will be necessary for the general operation of driverless vehicles. Their widespread operation will pose complex legal challenges, especially to determine liability in the event of any accident. It is not proposed that the New Zealand government will explicitly look at these legal issues at this time. Rather, the government will continue to monitor international developments and draw on this knowledge once international thinking has developed further and it is clearer if or when these vehicles will be commercially available.[142]

B. Autonomous Weapons Systems

The New Zealand government participates in the GGE on LAWS, which was established in 2016 at a conference of High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.[143] At the April 2018 meeting of the GGE, New Zealand made various statements, including that

[i]n New Zealand’s case, and in accordance with our AP1 [Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions] obligations, each emerging capability will be reviewed by New Zealand Defence Force using a multi-disciplinary approach and a determination by the Director of Defence Legal Services to ensure it is compliant with IHL [international humanitarian law]. Meaningful human control will be a contextual part of that assessment, alongside the cardinal points of IHL. We are looking at our framework for weapons reviews through the lens of emerging technologies and are interested in similar work being undertaken by others.[144]

It further stated that, in its view,

the ability to exercise human control is critical to whether a weapon would be able to comply with International Humanitarian Law as well as other requirements, such as Rules of Engagement. As articulated by the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] and others, the challenge before us now is to determine the kind of human control that is considered necessary for partially autonomous weapons systems.[145]

Separate from the government, the AI Forum signed the Lethal Autonomous Weapons Pledge in mid-2018.[146] This Pledge calls “upon governments and government leaders to create a future with strong international norms, regulations and laws against lethal autonomous weapons” and states that signatories will not participate in or support the development, manufacture, trade, or use of such weapons.[147]

Back to Top

Pakistan

In April 2018, the government of Pakistan allocated 1.1 billion rupees (about US$7.9 million) for a period of three years for artificial intelligence projects in six universities, under the supervision of the Higher Education Commission (HEC).[148] According to one news report, “[s]ix public sector universities have been picked out for setting up nine labs to carry out research in the field of AI.”[149]

During the 2017 and 2018 meetings of the GGE on LAWS, Pakistan was part of a group of countries that expressed their support for a “prohibition on the development, production, and use of AWS”[150] and for a “legally binding instrument on LAWS.”[151] During the 2018 GGE meeting, Pakistan stated that, “[p]ending the negotiation and conclusion of a legally binding Protocol, the states currently developing such weapons should place a moratorium on their production.”[152]

Back to Top

Singapore

I. AI Singapore Program

In May 2017, Singapore established a national AI program, “AI Singapore,” with funding of SG$150 million (about US$109 million) to catalyze, synergize, and boost Singapore’s AI capabilities. According to the website of AI Singapore,

AI Singapore will bring together all Singapore-based research institutions and the vibrant ecosystem of AI start-ups and companies developing AI products, to grow the knowledge, create the tools and develop the talent to power Singapore’s AI efforts. It is driven by a government-wide partnership comprising National Research Foundation (NRF), the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office, the Economic Development Board, the Infocomm Media Development Authority, SGInnovate, and the Integrated Health Information Systems. NRF will invest up to $150 million over five years in AI Singapore.[153]

II. Discussion Paper on AI and Personal Data

On June 5, 2018, Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) published the Discussion Paper on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Personal Data — Fostering Responsible Development and Adoption of AI (Discussion Paper).[154] The Discussion Paper presents the PDPC’s “preliminary analysis of some of the issues pertinent to the commercial development and adoption of AI solutions.”[155] According to the PDPC, the objective of the Discussion Paper is to propose an accountability-based framework for discussing ethical, governance, and consumer- protection issues related to  the  commercial  deployment  of  AI  in  a  systematic  and  structured manner.[156]

The Discussion Paper sets forth the following two principles for responsible AI:

(i) Decisions made by or with the assistance of AI should be explainable, transparent and fair so that affected individuals will have trust and confidence in these decisions.
. . .
(ii) AI systems, robots and decisions made using AI should be human-centric.[157]

The Discussion Paper is intended to spark discussion on promoting the responsible development and adoption of AI solutions and mitigating potential risks and negative impacts. The PDPC invited organizations in Singapore to adapt the document for their internal use, and encouraged trade associations and chambers, professional bodies and societies, and interest groups to adapt the proposed framework for their sectors in the form of voluntary codes of practice.[158]

III. Advisory Council on the Ethical Use of AI and Data

On August 30, 2018, Singapore announced the full composition of the Advisory Council on the Ethical Use of AI and Data, to advise and work with the relevant government authority on the responsible development and deployment of AI.[159]

The Advisory Council is comprised of eleven members from diverse backgrounds, including international leaders in AI such as Google, Microsoft, and Alibaba; advocates of social and consumer interests; and leaders of local companies who are keen to make use of AI.[160]

According to the official government statement on the composition of the Advisory Council, the Council will assist the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) in engaging the following stakeholders on issues that support the development of  AI governance capabilities  and frameworks:

• Ethics boards of commercial enterprises on ethical and related issues arising from private sector use of AI and data
• Consumer representatives on consumer expectations and acceptance of the use of AI
• Members of the private capital community on the need to incorporate ethical considerations in their investment decisions into businesses which develop or adopt AI[161]

The Advisory Council is tasked with assisting the government in developing ethics standards and reference governance frameworks, and publishing advisory guidelines, practical guides, and codes of practice for voluntary adoption by the industry.[162]

IV. Government-Funded Research Program on Governance of AI and Data Use

In June 2018, the Singaporean government awarded SG$4.5 million (about US$3.27 million) to the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law to set up a five-year research program on the governance of AI and data use. This program seeks to advance discourse in ethical, legal, policy, and governance issues arising from AI and data use.[163] According to the speech of Singapore’s Minister for Communications and  Information  announcing  the  award,  the research program

will enable Singapore to drive thought leadership on these issues and serve as a center for knowledge exchange with international experts. The program will adopt an international perspective and track international developments in these specific research areas.[164]

In September 2018, the SMU launched a new Centre for AI and Data Governance with the SG$4.5 million in funding.[165]

V. Autonomous Vehicles

To regulate trials of autonomous motor vehicles and pave the way for the development of automated vehicle technology in Singapore, an amendment to the Road Traffic Act was passed on February 7, 2017, and assented to by the President on March 13, 2017.[166]

The revised Road Traffic Act includes definitions of “automated vehicle technology,” “autonomous motor vehicle,” and “autonomous system,” as follows:

“automated vehicle technology” means any particular technology that —

(a) relates to the design, construction or use of autonomous motor vehicles; or

(b) otherwise relates to advances  in  the  design  or  construction  of  autonomous  motor vehicles;

“autonomous motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle equipped wholly or substantially with an autonomous system (also commonly known as a driverless vehicle), and includes a trailer drawn by such a motor vehicle;

“autonomous system”, for a motor vehicle, means a system that enables the operation of the motor vehicle  without  the  active  physical  control  of,  or  monitoring  by,  a  human operator[.][167]

The revised Act confers powers on the Minister for Transport to make rules concerning trials and use of autonomous vehicles.[168] Among other things, persons authorized to undertake such trials or carry out such use will be required to obtain liability insurance for the entire duration of the trial or use, or to deposit a security with the Land Transport Authority.[169] Such persons will also be required to publish a notice about the trial or use, before the trial or use starts, in a manner that will secure adequate publicity.[170]

Under the Road Traffic (Autonomous Motor Vehicles) Rules 2017, in granting an authorization for trials or use of autonomous vehicles, the Land Transport Authority may impose conditions as it thinks fit, including requiring a qualified safety driver to be seated in an autonomous motor vehicle to monitor  the  operation  of  the  vehicle  and  to  take  over  operation  of  the  vehicle  if necessary.[171]

Back to Top

South Korea

South Korea has an advanced robotics industry. In 2008, the National Assembly enacted the Intelligent Robot Development and Promotion Act to establish and promote a policy on the sustainable development of the intelligent robot industry.[172] An intelligent robot is defined by the Act as “a mechanical device that perceives the external environment for itself, discerns circumstances, and moves voluntarily.”[173] The government formulated national plans for the development and distribution of intelligent robots in 2009 and 2014 based on the law.[174]

The Act states that the government “may enact and promulgate the charter on intelligent robot ethics.”[175] The Act defines the “charter on intelligent robot ethics” as

a code of conduct established for persons involved in the development, manufacture, and use of intelligent robots in order to prevent various kinds of harmful or adverse effects, such as destruction of social order, that may arise from the development of functions and intelligence of intelligent robots, and to ensure intelligent robots contribute to enhancing the quality of life of human beings.[176]

It appears that the code has not yet been enacted.[177]

I. Robotics and AI

In 2016, the South Korean government planned to put 500 billion won (US$440 million) toward expanding the country’s robotics industry,[178] including the promotion of research and development into autonomous vehicles and social robots for healthcare.[179]

In February 2018, the government released a new development strategy for the intelligent robot industry along with four action plans. The action plans call for accelerating market expansion with collaborative robots and service robots while enhancing the industry’s supply and demand capabilities. The government provides a training program for postgraduate-level AI and robot convergence experts in cooperation with colleges.[180]

II. AI Promotion Policy

The South Korean governments funds many efforts toward the development of the AI industry. In 2016, the MSIP released a report titled Mid- to Long-term Plan in Preparation for the Intelligent Information Society.[181] The plan called for large-scale government investment to strengthen the country’s research and development in AI and for legal and ethical reforms for the intelligent information society, among other things.[182]

In January 2018, the South Korean government issued a report prepared jointly by six governmental entities outlining policies to promote technological development. AI is one of the targeted areas in the report. According to the report, the government plans to support early commercialization of self-driving vehicles and intelligent robots, among other things.[183]

On May 15, 2018, the Presidential Committee on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (PCFIR)[184] finalized a research and development strategy to support the plan to invest 2.2 trillion won (about US$1.95 billion) in public-sector AI projects over the next five years, to develop AI technology and nurture 5,000 AI specialists.[185]

III. Autonomous Car Development

South Korea has developed K-City, an unpopulated city for autonomous vehicle testing based on 5G mobile networks. Testing of autonomous vehicles has been conducted at K-City.[186]

Back to Top

Taiwan

I. Taiwan AI Action Plan

On January 18, 2018, Taiwan announced a four-year “Taiwan AI Action Plan” (2018–2021).[187] Under the Plan, Taiwan’s Executive Yuan will allocate an annual budget of up to 10 billion New Taiwan dollar (about US$324 million) to develop Taiwan’s AI industry.[188]

The Plan outlines five initiatives: cultivating talent, developing Taiwan’s niche AI, incubating local AI start-ups, reconciling laws for AI development, and introducing AI technologies to industries.[189] Aiming to allow more flexibility for AI development in Taiwan, legislation encouraging innovation in financial technology and easing employment restrictions on foreign skilled workers has been passed, and more bills are under consideration, including on information security and government procurement.[190]

II. Autonomous Vehicles

On November 30, 2018, the Legislative Yuan passed the Act for Unmanned Vehicle Technology Innovative Experiments, which was enacted by the President on December 19, 2018.[191] The Act has not yet entered into force; the date of enforcement will be decided by the Executive Yuan.[192]

The Act exempts developers from certain legal restrictions when testing unmanned vehicles for a prescribed period of time. “Unmanned vehicles” governed by the Act include land vehicles, aircraft, ships, or any combination thereof, that are remotely controlled or capable of autonomous operations by surveying their surroundings, determining their position,  and  determining the  best route.[193]

Back to Top

Prepared by Kelly Buchanan, Laney Zhang, Tariq Ahmad, and Sayuri Umeda
Foreign Law Specialists
January 2019

---

Back to Top

Last Updated: 12/30/2020