Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 71
2021
Recibido el 14/09/2021 Aceptado el 03/11/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 71 (2021), 609-620
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Human rights during the mass
introduction of articial intelligence and
robotic systems into public life
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3971.36
Dmitry Kuteynikov *
Osman Izhaev **
Valerian Lebedev ***
Sergey Zenin ****
Abstract
Purpose: This article considers legal approaches to
implementing human rights during the mass exploitation of
articial intelligence and robotic systems in public life. Methods:
Within the framework of this study, an emphasis is placed on
the legal regulation of articial intelligence systems and robotics
used for remote biometric identication of a person and the
creation of social credit systems. This study analyzes dierent models of
legal regulation that are typical of certain countries and regions, including
the UK, USA, China, and the EU. Results: In the UK, it is allowed to use
real-time face recognition systems in public spaces but the set of scenarios
and situations for their use is signicantly limited by legislation and law
enforcement. The legal regulation of these systems in each state is based
on a constant dialogue between state and civil society. The use of articial
intelligence and robotic systems to create social credit systems is tested
in some countries. Modern states have formed several approaches to the
creation of such systems: some of them completely prohibit these systems,
while others develop a technological and regulatory framework for the
creation of national systems.
Keywords: human rights; robotics; social rating; state; civil society.
* Kutan Moscow State Law University, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
1448-3085
** Kutan Moscow State Law University, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
3777-8927
*** Kutan Moscow State Law University, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7642-1325
**** Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia; Kutan Moscow State Law University, Moscow, Russia.
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-757X
610
Dmitry Kuteynikov, Osman Izhaev, Valerian Lebedev y Sergey Zenin
Human rights during the mass introduction of articial intelligence and robotic systems into
public life
Los derechos humanos durante la introducción masiva
de la inteligencia articial y los sistemas robóticos en la
vida pública
Resumen
El objetivo del artículo fue considerar enfoques legales para
implementar los derechos humanos durante la explotación masiva de
inteligencia articial y los sistemas robóticos en la vida pública. Se trata de
una investigación documental que hace énfasis en la regulación legal de los
sistemas de inteligencia articial y robótica utilizados para la identicación
biométrica remota de una persona y la creación de sistemas de crédito
social. Además, este estudio analiza diferentes modelos de regulación legal
que son típicos de ciertos países y regiones, incluidos el Reino Unido, EE.
UU., China y la UE. Resultados. Como conclusión se muestra que, en el
Reino Unido, se permite el uso de sistemas de reconocimiento, pero el
conjunto de escenarios y situaciones para su uso está signicativamente
limitado por la legislación y la aplicación de la ley. La regulación legal de
estos sistemas en un estado determinado se basa en un diálogo constante
entre el estado y la sociedad civil. El uso de inteligencia articial y sistemas
robóticos para crear sistemas de crédito social se prueba en algunos países.
Los estados modernos han formado varios enfoques para la creación de
tales sistemas: algunos de ellos prohíben completamente estos sistemas,
mientras que otros no.
Palabras clave: derechos humanos; robótica; calicación social; estado;
sociedad civil.
Introduction
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the digital environment has
become an independent sphere of society. The social relations arising in this
regard are relatively new and do not always have established approaches
to their regulation in legal science. On the contrary, the regulatory policy
of many states is still searching for the most adequate and eective legal
approaches (Gurinovich et al., 2020; Gurinovich and Smirnikova, 2021).
At rst glance, such traditional constitutional rights as the inviolability of
private life, the freedom of speech and expression, the right to information
and some other rights fully embrace the emerging relations in the eld
of information technology. However, the legal means of ensuring and
protecting such rights should also consider the specics of these relations
(Livingston and Risse, 2019).
611
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 609-620
At the level of states and private companies, technical means are
developed and introduced into public life, based on the use of complex
algorithms which are abstractly dened in the regulatory legal acts of
dierent countries by the term “articial intelligence”.
Public administration in various areas, including law enforcement, uses
technologies for collecting personal data of citizens (for example, digital
pass systems to control the movement of a person, including in transport,
as well as to dierentiate citizens by the scope of their rights; video
surveillance systems with face recognition technology, etc.). Many countries
develop comprehensive government systems to control public life. Under
such circumstances, an unprecedented amount of data is generated and is
increasing exponentially, along with the potential risks of violating human
rights.
1. Methods
We set the objective of analyzing the world’s legal approaches to protecting
human rights during the mass introduction of articial intelligence and
robotic systems into public life. This article studies approaches to the legal
regulation of articial intelligence and robotic systems for the remote
biometric identication of a person and the creation of social credit systems.
The rst task was to study the legal regulation of articial intelligence
and robotic systems for the remote biometric identication of a person in
the UK, USA, EU, and China. The analysis of their legislation is conditioned
by dierent ways to the regulation of the issue under consideration. The
study of these approaches will reveal the best options for legal regulation.
The second task was to analyze the use of articial intelligence and
robotic systems to create social credit systems. The study identies several
approaches to the legal regulation of this issue that are typical of certain
countries and regions. It also analyzes the impact of these systems on
fundamental human rights.
2. Results
In recent years, the UK has developed legal regulation and law
enforcement practice on the use of articial intelligence and robotic
systems in public life. Security authorities allow the use of real-time face
recognition systems in public spaces, but scenarios and situations of their
use are signicantly limited by legislation and law enforcement practice.
The legal regulation of these systems in each state is based on a constant
dialogue between state and civil society.
612
Dmitry Kuteynikov, Osman Izhaev, Valerian Lebedev y Sergey Zenin
Human rights during the mass introduction of articial intelligence and robotic systems into
public life
The United States still has no federal laws on the use of articial
intelligence for biometric identication. State and local legislation go
dierently. In several states and cities, the use of the corresponding
technologies is prohibited completely or signicantly limited.
The EU has developed a draft Regulation of the European Parliament
and the Council laying down Harmonized Rules on Articial Intelligence
(Articial Intelligence Act). This draft is supposed to impose a ban on the
use of articial intelligence for the remote biometric identication of people
in public spaces in real-time to protect law and order, except for three listed
and dened situations when such use is necessary to achieve a signicant
public interest, whose importance outweighs the risks.
In China, there is no special regulation of this sphere. The use of these
systems is described in civil legislation, as well as in legal acts on cyber
security and data circulation. The development of these systems is controlled
by the Chinese government. Due to the high centralization of power, there
is a risk of violating human rights and ending up with the total surveillance
of citizens without any legislatively established framework and restrictions.
The use of articial intelligence and robotic systems to create social credit
systems is not widespread in most countries. However, their legislations
utilize several approaches: a complete ban on the creation of these
systems or the formation of a regulatory framework for the deployment of
nationwide systems. At the same time, the functioning of these systems will
not correspond to universally recognized human rights and civil freedoms.
Thus, it is necessary to prevent the creation and application of social scoring
both at the national level and at the level of individual territories or spheres
of public life.
3. Discussion: the use of articial intelligence and robotic
systems for the remote biometric identication of a person
One of the most sensitive spheres of public life, inuenced by the
implementation of the aforementioned technologies, has become relations
associated with the establishment of legal guarantees for the protection of
human rights to privacy in connection with the use of articial intelligence
systems for remote biometric identication. These systems are usually used
by government agencies to ensure national security (the search and capture
of oenders, the predictive analytics of crime) but there are other ways to
use them in the public sector, for example, payments for public transport,
public services, etc. These systems are being used in the private sector,
especially in banking, retail, communications, and security.
613
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 609-620
In the UK, public and human rights organizations are against the use
of real-time facial recognition by the police in public places after several
citizens were apprehended for no reason (Woollacott, 2021).
From the legal perspective, the use of face recognition systems by the
police did not have any regulation until recently. In 2019, human rights
organization Liberty led a lawsuit against the South Wales Police alleging
that the police’s use of facial recognition in public places violated the
fundamentals of human rights, such as the Human Rights Act, the Data
Protection Act and Equality Act (Gordon, 2021). The court ruled that, on
the one hand, there was a sucient legal basis to ensure the proper use of
real-time face recognition systems and, on the other hand, that the police
used these systems in full compliance with the existing law (Centre for Data
Ethics and Innovation, 2020).
In 2020, Liberty appealed against this decision (R. (Bridges) v. Chief
Constable of South Wales Police. The court ruled that the use of real-time
face recognition systems by the police in some cases did not comply with
law. The court reached the following conclusions (Biometrics and Forensics
Ethics Group, 2021):
• The use of facial recognition systems violated the right to privacy
protected by the Human Rights Act. The court found critical aws
in the legal framework that left too much regulatory leeway for
employees.
• The use of face recognition systems violated certain provisions
of the Data Protection Act. While considering the impact on data
protection, it was impossible to properly assess the risks of violating
the rights and freedoms of data subjects, and no measures were taken
to eliminate these risks. Two groups of powers were also identied,
within which state bodies have unacceptably wide opportunities for
discretion: rstly, how persons are selected for observation lists;
secondly, on what basis technical complexes equipped with face
recognition systems are in a particular public space.
• The South Wales Police violated their responsibilities under certain
provisions of the Equality Act because the police did not attempt to
verify, either independently or through an outside review, that the
software was free of potential race- or gender-based bias (The Court
of Appeal of England and Wales, 2020).
Based on this judgment, amendments were made to the Surveillance
Camera Code of Practice. Accordingly, system operators should plan their
work based on 12 guiding principles, including limiting an exhaustive list of
areas and scenarios for their use, transparency, the priority of human rights,
and non-discrimination (Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, 2013).
614
Dmitry Kuteynikov, Osman Izhaev, Valerian Lebedev y Sergey Zenin
Human rights during the mass introduction of articial intelligence and robotic systems into
public life
In the UK, it is allowed to use real-time face recognition systems in public
spaces but the set of scenarios and situations for their use is signicantly
limited by legislation and law enforcement. The legal regulation of these
systems in a given state is based on a constant dialogue between state and
civil society.
In the United States, there are no federal laws on articial intelligence
systems for biometric identication. The development of one or several
system-forming acts has been discussed by legislators but there are only
some legislative initiatives that are at dierent stages of consideration. This
is due to the general legal regulation of articial intelligence systems and
the circulation of personal data, which are carried out ad hoc. In 2020, the
Decree of the President of the United States was adopted, and appropriate
recommendations were developed for executive authorities.
Such tech companies as Amazon and Microsoft imposed a moratorium
on this set of technologies until legislators form a sucient regulatory
framework or roadmap. In contrast, IBM announced that it would cease
its participation in the related business projects (Feiner and Palmer, 2021).
State and local legislation go dierently. In several states and cities,
the use of the corresponding technologies is prohibited completely or
signicantly limited (Sakin, 2021). The use of these systems has attracted
great public attention after the Black Lives Matter protests and arrests after
the “2021 Capitol attack”.
The EU has developed a draft Regulation of the European Parliament
and the Council laying down Harmonized Rules on Articial Intelligence
(Articial Intelligence Act). This draft is supposed to impose a ban on the
use of articial intelligence for the remote biometric identication of people
in public spaces in real-time to protect law and order, except for three listed
and dened situations when such use is necessary to achieve a signicant
public interest, whose importance outweighs the risks.
These situations include: rstly, the search for potential victims of crime,
including missing children; secondly, a threat to human life or safety, in
particular in case of terrorist attacks; thirdly, the detection, localization,
identication and prosecution of persons who committed or are suspected
of committing crimes according to constituent elements (32 elements of
criminal oenses with imprisonment of at least three years) (Proposal for a
regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016).
A similar position was expressed by the European Data Protection Board
(EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) regarding
the previously published European Commission Articial Intelligence
Regulation draft. The document states that given the extremely high risks
associated with remote biometric identication in public places, the EDPB
and EDPS call for a general ban on any use of articial intelligence to
615
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 609-620
automatically recognize human features in public places such as the face,
gait, ngerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and other biometric or behavioral
signals in any context (European Data Protection Board, 2021).
The EU is currently forming a stable and multidimensional system
for the legal regulation of articial intelligence and robotic systems for
remote biometric identication in public places in real-time. However, the
regulation of such public relations in the EU is “human-oriented”, which
protects and guarantees human rights and civil freedoms. This emphasizes
the legal support of regulation in the eld of technological development.
At the same time, it slows down business processes and the application of
specic products in public life. The EU is an important market for almost all
big tech companies, so as with the GDPR. If adopted, this can become one
of the key approaches since new technology products will be designed with
these constraints in mind.
The most widespread use of articial intelligence and robotic systems for
remote biometric identication is typical of China. The regulation of these
systems is reected in civil law, as well as in regulatory legal acts on cyber
security and data circulation. Currently, this sphere of public relations does
not have special regulations. China has done quite a lot of work in the eld
of data protection. In 2016, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic
of China was adopted which established regulatory requirements like those
of the EU and the US. Since China is a state with an authoritarian political
system, data condentiality is more connected with the decisions of public
authorities rather than with the creation of a unied legal framework
supported by independent judicial decisions.
This issue is common to other spheres of social and economic activity,
where the freedom of private and public organizations is rather limited
by the state’s interests. By adopting legal acts, the state provides a lot
of opportunities for unlimited participation in the activities of private
companies and actively introduces innovations to create a unied system
for controlling all the spheres of public life.
In July 2017, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China
announced a strategy for the development of articial intelligence called the
“Next Generation Articial Intelligence Development Plan”. According to
this strategy, China aims at becoming a global leader in articial intelligence
by 2030, as well as to take a leading position in the development of
regulatory acts, ethics, and standards for articial intelligence. The concept
represents only a general model and objectives of future legal regulation.
Consequently, it should be considered in conjunction with other regulatory
legal acts. Although this concept was developed by the state, the actual
implementation of these innovations and transformations will be carried
out by the private sector and local authorities (Roberts et al., 2021).
616
Dmitry Kuteynikov, Osman Izhaev, Valerian Lebedev y Sergey Zenin
Human rights during the mass introduction of articial intelligence and robotic systems into
public life
The Chinese regulation is also characterized by rather quick adaptation
to the use of new technologies in the market. Unlike the above-mentioned
countries, China uses unmanned vehicles on public roads in marked areas
(Ziyan and Shiguo, 2021) and created the rst automated e-courts and a
unied social credit system.
An important feature of China is a rather high level of citizens’ approval
of video surveillance systems if compared to the other countries. According
to the study conducted by European scientists, the Chinese demonstrate
much support for the use of face recognition technologies (67%), as well as
the lowest dissatisfaction with their deployment (9%) (Kostka et al., 2021).
On the one hand, China has adopted ambitious concepts in relation to
the functioning of articial intelligence and robotic systems and introduces
innovations into public life much more actively than the EU and the USA
due to centralized regulation. On the other hand, the development of
these systems in China is controlled by the state, which, due to the high
centralization of power, leads to the risk of human rights violations and the
creation of total surveillance of citizens without any legislatively established
framework and restrictions.
It can be argued that the use of articial intelligence systems for remote
biometric identication in public places can aect the privacy of a large
part of the population, create a sense of constant surveillance and indirectly
interfere with the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights. In
addition, the proper functioning of these systems and the impossibility of
correcting errors when using these systems in real-time raises concerns.
It should also be noted that:
Automatic face recognition not only tracks behavior but can also change it.
When suspects know that they are being watched, for example, during a peaceful
protest, their behavior might dier from what it would have been if they had not
been watched (Gordon, 2021: 2).
Thus, the legislation of most democratic countries develops a system
of legal regulation based on a balanced approach between the protection
of human rights and the interests of national security. Legislators need to
regulate the procedures and specic cases of using articial intelligence for
the remote identication of a person, as well as consider the possibility of
limiting human rights.
4. The use of articial intelligence and robotic systems to create
social credit systems
Articial intelligence for remote biometric identication together with
systems for processing big data can be used to create social credit systems.
617
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 609-620
These trends cannot be called universal, but China is systematically moving
towards the creation of a unied system for monitoring public life, i.e.,
it has begun testing these technological solutions in separate territories
(Haciyakupoglu, 2021).
The assessment and classication of the individual’s trustworthiness
based on social behavior, known, or predicted personality traits can lead to
the discrimination of certain social groups and their exclusion from public
life.
Certain countries, including the EU, plan to introduce a complete ban
on the creation of such systems. The draft Regulation of the European
Parliament and the Council laying down Harmonized Rules on Articial
Intelligence (Articial Intelligence Act) established that such systems
should be prohibited by law since the assessment and classication of the
individual’s trustworthiness based on social behavior, known or predicted
personality traits can lead to the discrimination of certain social groups and
their exclusion from public life (Proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council, 2016).
A similar position was expressed by the European Data Protection Board
(EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) regarding
the previously published European Commission Articial Intelligence
Regulation draft. The document states that the EDPB and EDPS recommend
a ban on the use of biometric data by articial intelligence and robotic
systems to divide people into social groups based on their ethnicity, gender,
political or sexual orientation or other grounds on which discrimination
is prohibited by Article 21 of the EU Charter on fundamental rights. In
addition, the EDPB and EDPS believe that the use of articial intelligence
and robotic systems to detect human emotions is highly discouraged and
should be prohibited, except for some cases (such as for some medical
purposes where the recognition of patient’s emotions is essential). The use
of articial intelligence and robotic systems for any type of social scoring
should be prohibited (European Data Protection Board, 2021).
Conclusion
Thus, modern states have formed several approaches to the creation of
social credit systems: some of them completely prohibit these systems, while
others develop a technological and regulatory framework for the creation of
national systems. It seems that the use of such systems will comply with the
legislation of most democracies and fundamental international acts. From
the legal viewpoint, it is necessary to prevent the creation and application of
social ratings both at the national level and at the level of certain territories
or spheres of public life.
618
Dmitry Kuteynikov, Osman Izhaev, Valerian Lebedev y Sergey Zenin
Human rights during the mass introduction of articial intelligence and robotic systems into
public life
The state should regulate public relations in the digital sphere, especially
to protect human rights and civil freedoms, but there is a risk of excessive
regulation. The latter can decrease the benets of using technological
solutions and slow down the development of the digital economy.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
according to research project No. 18-29-16193.
Bibliographic References
BIOMETRICS AND FORENSICS ETHICS GROUP. 2021. Brieng note on the
ethical issues arising from public–private collaboration in the use of live
facial recognition technology (accessible). GOV.UK. Available online.
In: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-private-use-
of-live-facial-recognition-technology-ethical-issues/brieng-note-on-
the-ethical-issues-arising-from-public-private-collaboration-in-the-
use-of-live-facial-recognition-technology-accessible. Consultation date:
05/05/2021.
CENTRE FOR DATA ETHICS AND INNOVATION. 2020. Independent report
Snapshot Paper – Facial Recognition Technology. GOV.UK. Available
online. In: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cdei-
publishes-brieng-paper-on-facial-recognition-technology/snapshot-
paper-facial-recognition-technology. Consultation date: 05/05/2021.
EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION BOARD. 2021. EDPB & EDPS call for ban
on use of AI for automated recognition of human features in publicly
accessible spaces, and some other uses of AI that can lead to unfair
discrimination. edpb.europa.eu. Available online. In: https://edpb.
europa.eu/news/news/2021/edpb-edps-call-ban-use-ai-automated-
recognition-human-features-publicly-accessible_en. Consultation date:
28/08/2021.
FEINER, Lauren; PALMER, Annie. 2021. Rules around facial recognition
and policing remain blurry. CNBC. Available online. In: https://www.
cnbc.com/2021/06/12/a-year-later-tech-companies-calls-to-regulate-
facial-recognition-met-with-little-progress.html. Consultation date:
28/08/2021.
GORDON, Barrie. 2021. “Automated facial recognition in law enforcement: the
Queen (on application of Edward Bridges) v the chief constable of South
619
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 609-620
Wales Police” In: Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal. Vol. 24, pp.
1-29.
GURINOVICH, Aleksander; LAPINA, M.A; IVANOV, A.E. 2020. “Ways of
restricting the rights of taxpayers under agreements for the avoidance
of double taxation in national legislation” In: SAGE Open. Vol. 10, No.
4, pp. 1-8.
GURINOVICH, Aleksander; SMIRNIKOVA, J.L. 2021. “Debt policy of the
Russian regions: economic and legal research” In: Indian Journal of
Finance. Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 23-35.
HACIYAKUPOGLU, Gulizar. 2021. China’s social credit system: questions on
the current status, role of data and surveillance, and inuence outside
of China. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Riga,
Latvia. Available online. In: https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/
chinas-social-credit-system-current-status-role-of-data-and-
surveillance-and-inuence-outside-of-china/209. Consultation date:
28/08/2021.
KOSTKA, Genia; STEINACKER, Lea; MECKEL, Miriam. 2021. “Between
security and convenience: facial recognition technology in the eyes of
citizens in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States”
In: Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 671-690.
LIVINGSTON, Steven; RISSE, Mathias. 2019. “The future impact of articial
intelligence on humans and human rights” In: Ethics & International
Aairs. Vol. 2, pp. 141-158.
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACT)
AND AMENDING CERTAIN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS. 2016. EUR-
Lex. Available online. In: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
ALL/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206. Consultation date: 05/05/2021.
ROBERTS, Huw; COWLS, Josh; MORLEY, Jessica; TADDEO, Mariarosaria;
WANG, Vincent; FLORIDI, Luciano 2021. “The Chinese approach to
articial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation” In: AI
& Society. Vol. 36, pp. 59-77.
SAKIN, Nicole. 2021. Will there be federal facial recognition regulation in the
US? iapp.org. Available online. In: https://iapp.org/news/a/u-s-facial-
recognition-roundup/. Consultation date: 05/05/2021.
SURVEILLANCE CAMERA CODE OF PRACTICE. 2013. GOV.UK. Available
online. In: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/
620
Dmitry Kuteynikov, Osman Izhaev, Valerian Lebedev y Sergey Zenin
Human rights during the mass introduction of articial intelligence and robotic systems into
public life
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/le/1010815/Surveillance_
Camera_Code_of_Practice__update_.pdf. Consultation date:
05/05/2021.
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ENGLAND AND WALES. 2020. The Queen (on
the application of Edward Bridges) (Appellant) v The Chief Constable of
South Wales Police (Respondent) & others [2020] EWCA Civ
1058. Available online. In: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2020/08/R-Bridges-v-CC-South-Wales-ors-Judgment.pdf.
Consultation date: 05/05/2021.
WOOLLACOTT, Emma. 2021. UK Government accused of sneaking through
new live facial recognition rules. Forbes.com. Available online. In:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/08/23/uk-
government-accused-of-sneaking-through-new-live-facial-recognition-
rules/?sh=e47cf88706f3. Consultation date: 28/08/2021.
ZIYAN, Chen; SHIGUO, Liu. 2021. “China’s self-driving car legislation study”
In: Computer Law and Security Review. Vol. 41, Article 105555.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en diciembre de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 71