有望保障自动驾驶汽车安全的区块链和智能合约的法律风险及优势

作为一种与加密货币“比特币”紧密相关的分布式数字账本技术，区块链能否减轻汽车零部件生产过程的固有风险呢？我们又是否能相信这项打着黑客烙印的技术可以保障网联自动驾驶汽车的安全，为我们开启交通运输的未来呢？

如果区块链和智能合约（Smart Contracts）可以在推动交通经济的同时减轻法律风险，那么也许它们就是我们在寻找的答案。

区块链推动智能合约

很多人都以为区块链就是神秘的加密货币，但其实区块链本身只是一个数字账本系统。交易在一个去中心化的电脑网络上开始后，系统中的协议会对交易进行验证，并利用计算机逻辑自动跟踪交易事件。简而言之，区块链的原理就是通过智能合约的代码执行法律合同的逻辑，判断是否允许金额或信息的交换和转移，并在区块链上对这些行为进行记录。

例如法国安盛集团（AXA）就在使用智能合约管理航空保险。如果航班延误超过两个小时，用户会在app上收到赔偿提案。最近又有三十多家汽车企业一同发起了“交通开放区块链倡议”（MOBI）（见第10页）。MOBI的创始人兼主席Chris Ballinger表示，“区块链和相关的信用度增强技术将重塑整个汽车行业，彻底改变消费者买车、上车险和用车的方式。”

MOBI已经开始评估以下几个关键的区块链用途：

•  供应链跟踪

• 根据驾驶行为征收交通费、保费、燃料费、拥堵费、污染治理费和路桥费。

区块链、智能合约和法律

虽然智能合约和区块链有望解决交通运输的难题，但风险问题也接踵而来：

我的代码会不会导致法律纠纷？

为智能合约编写代码的程序员，其实是在编译合约的逻辑，这可能会让技术专家陷入以下困境：

• 合约和代码的内容不一致：如果一份合约的“四角之内”即文本之内存在相互矛盾的条款，或者两份相互矛盾的合约发生冲突，即发生所谓的“格式之战”，那么问题就会变得很棘手。这两个问题都牵扯到复杂的法律纠纷。智能合约和传统合约之间的冲突，依然是个悬而未决的问题。

   

• 合约无法执行。一般而言，错误的代码会导致保修问题或召回事件。事实上，多达15%的汽车召回的根本原因是软件错误。但是，如果因为平台或代码故障而导致合约失效，又会有什么样的后果呢？答案是这取决于合约。可能没有什么后果，但也可能导致应该发生的事情没有发生。如果合约中的某些条款无法正常执行，则相关方可能会被视为违约，并需要承担所有造成的损失。

区块链真的能减轻安全风险和隐私风险吗？

从安全和隐私的角度看，区块链的去中心化和分布式特征使其十分具有吸引力。但是区块链也并非固若金汤，不久前也发生了黑客攻击Coincheck导致价值5亿多美元的数字货币遭窃。此外，去中心化的数据也需要遵循适用法律，比如欧盟最新出台的《通用数据保护条例》（GDPR）。这可能会影响数据隐私。例如，按照GDRP的规定，一家公司可能被要求删除某些数据，但区块链技术又决定了这些数据是不可更改的。

区块链是一项新技术，我们需要担心监管问题吗？

目前美国尚未出台监管区块链的非加密货币用途的联邦法律。亚利桑那州已经通过了鼓励智能合约的立法，内布拉斯加州等其它州也在就类似的提案展开讨论。区块链的这种监管不确定性和自动驾驶汽车如出一辙。目前来看，区块链监管的重心将放在加密货币的应用上，非加密货币用途的监管力度相对会比较薄弱。这也恰好反映了持续监督的重要性。

有了智能合约，我们就不再需要律师了吗？

律师们经常会开玩笑地引用莎士比亚的一句名言“让我们杀掉所有律师”。很多区块链和智能合约的支持者认为这项技术可以取代律师撰写合约。这是言过其实了。智能合约不会取代律师，因为智能合约还面临着以下几大法律问题：

• 合约的可执行性。一份合约必须具备合法性、约束力和可执行性。为此，合约必须满足所有的法律要求。事实上，随着智能合约的发展，律师的专业知识会变得更加不可替代。

   

• 管辖权。在去中心化的系统中，很难确定交易发生的地点，因而很难确定哪里的法院具有管辖权。要解决这个问题，可以在合约中事先约定好以哪部法律作为准据，这样就能把风险降至最低。这也反映了律师参与的重要性。

   

• 有限责任和风险的分配。智能合约的代码可能会相互矛盾，也可能会出现错误。鉴于目前还不能确定如何依法处理这些冲突，最好还是应该事先在纸本合约中阐明处理方法。

不管区块链和智能合约将来能否成为保护自动驾驶车辆数据、实现移动交易的终极解决方案，抑或是和其它解决方案并驾齐驱，我们依然需要建立一个私密、安全、高效、简便的新系统。如果我们勤加努力，区块链和智能合约或许真的可以减轻运营和法律风险，帮助我们找到问题的答案。

Legal risk and reward of blockchain and smart contracts as a prescription for automotive applications

Can blockchain, the digital distributed ledger technology so closely associated with the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, be used to mitigate the inherent risks of manufacturing automotive components? Can a hacker-branded technology be trusted to secure our connected and autonomous systems and drive anew mobility future?

If blockchain and smart contracts can provide an avenue for expanding the mobility economy while mitigating legal risks, they may be right for you.

Smart contracts, fortified by blockchain!

Most identify blockchain with the shadowy realm of cryptocurrencies, yet blockchain is simply a digital ledger system incorporating protocols that validate transactions across a decentralized network of computers, using computer logic to automate the tracking of performance events. Simply expressed, the code in smart contracts executes the logic of the legal agreement to exchange and transfer value or information—and the results are recorded on the blockchain.

For example, the French airline AXA has a smart contract that addresses flight insurance. If a flight is more than two hours late, app users are notified with compensation options.

Recently, more than thirty automotive companies joined forces to create MOBI, the Mobility Open Blockchain Initiative. Chris Ballinger, MOBI’s founding chairman, said: “Blockchain and related trust-enhancing technologies are poised to redefine the automotive industry and how consumers purchase, insure and use vehicles.”

MOBI has started assessing key use cases including:

• Supply-chain tracking

• Usage-based mobility pricing and payments for vehicles, insurance, energy, congestion charging, pollution and infrastructure

Blockchain, smart contracts and the law

As smart contracts and blockchain emerge as potential solutions to mobility challenges, risk-related questions arise:

Can my code cause legal headaches?

The person coding the smart contract is creating an interpretation of the contract logic. That’s where technical professionals can run into trouble.

• When the contract says one thing and the code says another. It’s a troublesome world when contract provisions inside the same agreement collide (conflicting clauses that fall within the “four corners” of the contract) or when two competing contracts collide (the “battle of the forms”).  Each of these problems has its own complex body of law. The issues where a smart contract competes with traditional drafted form shave not yet been resolved.
• When the contract doesn’t execute at all. Traditionally, errors in coding lead to either warranty concerns or potential recalls. In fact, as many as 15% of all automotive recalls find software as the root cause. But what happens if a contract fails because either the platform or code doesn’t work? Depending on the contract, nothing may happen or something may not have happened that should have. If you have provisions that don’t execute properly, you may be in breach of a larger contract and liable for any resulting damages.

Blockchain will mitigate security and privacyrisks—right?

Blockchain technology is seductive from security and privacy standpoints because it is decentralized and distributed. But blockchain is not invulnerable to fraud, hence the loss of over $500 million in digital coins in a hack of Coincheck. Further, this decentralization may impact data privacy by adding a requirement to comply with applicable laws, including the recently adopted EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As an example, under the GDPR, a company may be required to remove data which may be placed on a technology designed to be immutable.

The blockchain is new. Will we have to worry about regulations?

At present, there are no federal laws regulating non-cryptocurrency uses of blockchain in the U.S. Arizona has passed legislation to promote smart contract usage and states such as Nebraska have debated similar proposals. This currently equates to a regulatory uncertainty that mirrors the autonomous-vehicle regulatory scheme. Right now, it appears the main regulatory push will be towards the currency applications, with less restriction contemplated on non-cryptocurrency uses—which stresses the importance of continued monitoring.

Finally, with smart contracts, we can avoid the lawyers… can’t we?

In lawyer humor, William Shakespeare’s quote“Let’s kill all the lawyers” often reigns supreme. Many blockchains and smart contract advocates see this technology displacing lawyers for creating contracts. Despite the hype, smart contracts will not replace your lawyer. You will still need to address:

• Enforceability. A contract must be legal, binding and enforceable. To make it so, you must meet all requirements under the law. If anything, your lawyer’s knowledge is even more irreplaceable in the move toward smart contracts.
• Jurisdiction. With decentralized systems, it’s challenging to determine where the transaction occurs and what courts would seek to enforce within their realms. This risk can be minimized with the use of detailed governing-law provisions in agreements, stressing the importance of involving legal professionals.
• Limitation of Liability and AllocatingRisks. There is risk conflicting code and coding errors.  With uncertainty in how these conflicts might be treated under the law, it’s best to address these considerations in the legal contract.

Whether blockchain and smart contracts become the ultimate solution for protecting autonomous vehicle data and enabling mobility transactions—orjust one of a number of solutions—the “need” remains: to create a system that is private and secure while being both effective and friendly. Blockchain and smart contracts provide a potential solution that, with proper diligence, may mitigate practical and legal risks.

Author: Jennifer Dukarski and Ashley Glime
Source: SAE Automotive Vehicle Engineering Magazine