Ethical Issues, Cybersecurity and Automated Vehicles

  • Sara LandiniEmail author
Part of the AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation book series (ERSILR, volume 1)


The digitalization of mobility and the associated increase of data are creating new requirements to be met by vehicle safety and infrastructure in a way to satisfy the requirements of the protection of personal rights and freedoms of data subjects. Automated and connected autonomous vehicles and driving systems (CAVs) require clear cybersecurity and data protection requirements. CAVs are under the obligation to perform their functions safely and reliably across national borders. As the automation and interconnectivity of driving functions increases, the issues of data encryption and cybersecurity will become more important. The rights to individual mobility data, which will emerge, will accordingly need to be clearly regulated.

This chapter aims to show the benefits and threats associated with the use of automated cars, starting from the definition of automation and self-learning machines. Interventions are reported in terms of legislation and guidelines in Community law. The chapter discusses ethical issues in relation to the use of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and cybersecurity aspects affecting the use of AVs. The chapter concludes by highlighting the importance of giving relevance to the decision-making autonomy of machines in regulation.


  1. Acosta AJ (2018) Smart move? 24 Essentials of a SWOT analysis policymakers need to consider, Policy Paper on Autonomous Vehicles,
  2. Bauman Z (2006) Liquid times: living in an age of uncertainty. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp TL (2001) Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Billings CE (1997) Aviation automation: the search for a human-centered approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaschczok A (1998) Gefährdungshaftung und Risikozuweisung. Heymanns, CologneGoogle Scholar
  7. Borges G (2018) Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für autonome Systeme. NJW 71(14):977 ffGoogle Scholar
  8. Calefato C, Montanari R, Tesauri F (2008) The adaptive automation design. Human computer interaction: new developments, the human factors and ergonomics society. Web. Google Scholar
  9. Channon M (2016) Autonomous vehicles and legal effects: some considerations on liability issues. DIMAF 1:33Google Scholar
  10. Endsley MR (1999) Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42(3):462–492. North Carolina State University. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, Luetge C, Madelin R, Pagallo U, Rossi F, Schafer B, Valcke P, Vayena EJM (2018) AI4People —an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds Mach 28(4):689–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greger R (2018) Haftungsfragen beim automatisierten Fahren. Zum Arbeitskreis II des Verkehrsgerichtstags. NVZ 33:1Google Scholar
  13. Jansen N (2003) Die Struktur des Haf-tungsrechts. Mohr Siebeck, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. Koza JR, Bennett FH, Andre D, Keane MA (1996) Automated design of both the topology and sizing of analog electrical circuits using genetic programming. In: Artificial Intelligence in Design’96. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–170Google Scholar
  15. Merkin R, Noussia K, Bevan N (2017) University of exeter – written evidence (AUV0044), driverless vehicles – where are we going wrong?. In: Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: The future?, House of Lords Report,,_The_future_HoL_Report.PDF
  16. Mitchell T (1997) Machine learning. McGraw Hill, New York, p 2Google Scholar
  17. Murphy KP (2012) Machine learning a probabilistic perspective. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Naylor M (2017) Insurance transformed. Technological disruption. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nof SY (2009) Automation: what it means to us around the world. In: Nof SY (ed) Springer hand-book of automation. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raja Parasuraman, Sheridan Thomas B, Wickens Christopher D (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation,,%20Sheridan,%20Wickens_2000.pdf
  21. Pierini M (2018) Veicoli automatici L’importanza di dare un significato ad un termine ormai noto, in
  22. Pillath S (2016) Automated vehicles in the EU. European Union, Strasbourg. Available at:, 10. 12. 2018Google Scholar
  23. Samuel AL (1959) Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM J Res Dev 44:1.2Google Scholar
  24. Simon HA (1979) Models of thought. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith BW (2013) SAE levels of driving automationGoogle Scholar
  26. Teubner G (2018) Digitale Rechtssubjekte? Zum privatrechtlichen Status automoner Softwareagenten. AcP 54:155–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teubner G (2019) In: Femia P (ed) Soggetti giuridici digitali? Sullo status privatistico degli agenti software antonomi. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples Google Scholar
  28. Weinrib EJ (1987) causation and wrongdoing. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 63:407 ffGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of FlorenceFlorence Italy

Personalised recommendations