Interactive Implants: Ethical, legal and social implications

Abstract

The use of intelligent implants and prostheses offers significant advances for optimizing medical treatment methods and is combined with an increasing technological modification of human body. This raises many exciting questions concerning law, ethics and social implications: Does the use of these techniques stay in line with our legal system and if yes, can the technical use be limited by governmental restrictions under certain conditions? Have moral values to be incorporated into technical artifacts? If machines are recreated from human beings, do they have to be provided with a legal subjectivity? Medical devices must be compatible with a high level of protection of health and safety. Therefore challenges, which are consequences of the indeterminate behaviour and the autonomous learning abilities of artificial intelligence, have to be faced. For avoidance of any hazards for legally protected rights medical product manufacturers have to assume legal duties, which affect construction, instruction and product development. For medical professionals there are also liabilities of maintenance measures and technical control that have to be accomplished. Associated with the use of intelligent medical devices is the processing of personal data on health. Health data have a high potential for misuse and discrimination and therefore they’re in need of special protection, particularly with regard to the development of “Big Data”, “Ubiquitous computing”, “Internet of Things” and constantly increasing cybercrime. If damages are suffered from the use of intelligent medical devices, difficulties in determining infringing acts, causality and culpability occur, especially because of the missing view into the technical progress of decision-making. It has to be explored, if the current liability law is able to assign responsibility adequately, otherwise there has to be found an appropriate concept for liability.

Cybersicherheit von Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen

“…Besonders groß sind Angriffsflächen für Cyberattacken, 67 wenn Geräte drahtlos 68 vernetzt sind [ 24 , S. 829, 833 ff. ; 100 , S. 14 ff. ; 101 , S. 116 ff.].…”

“…Eine Basismaßnahme, um sicherzustellen, dass eine Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstelle mit anderen Geräten vertraulich kommuniziert, ist deren Verschlüsselung [ 24 , S. 829; 76 , S. 653; 100 , S. 16]: Daten sind während der Übertragung („in motion“) und im ruhenden Zustand („at rest“) mit einer geeigneten Verschlüsselungsmethode zu schützen (Art. 32 Abs.…”

“…1 lit. c DSGVO) auf die notwendigen Informationen und Verarbeitungsschritte beschränken [ 100 , S. 16; 174 , S. 89 ff. ; 175 ; 176 , Rn.…”

“…137 Kraft ihres technischen Zuschnitts („by Design“) sollte die Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstelle so weit wie möglich vermeiden, personenbezogene Daten zu übermitteln: IP-Adressen oder die Modell- bzw. Device-ID sollte das Gerät standardmäßig entfernen, bevor es Daten an eine Plattform übermittelt [ 100 , S. 16].…”

“… 75 „[T]ablets and smartphones constitute a high potential entry port for malware and cyberattacks because of their clueless and careless use: the opening of e‑mail attachments of unknown senders, careless surfing in open WLAN networks and missing security updates represent a small section of the various strains …“ [ 100 , S. 14]. Auch Apps weisen häufig Sicherheitslücken auf [ 107 ].…”