Archive | March, 2014

Discussants and Moderators: Day Two – April 5th

We Robot 2014 presentations feature Discussants and Moderators who are in integral part of the conference. Discussants are the lead speakers in their session and are responsible for presenting the main themes of the paper and offering their views. Moderators are the ringmasters of their panels.

Jack M. Balkin

Jack M. Balkin

Jack M. Balkin will be the Discussant for Ian Kerr and Carissima Mathen’s paper Chief Justice John Roberts is a Robot on Saturday, April 5th at 8:30 AM in the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Balkin is the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School and the founder and director of Yale’s Information Society Project, an interdisciplinary center that studies law and the new information technologies, as well as the director of the Knight Law and Media Program and the Abrams Institute for Free Expression at Yale. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the author of over a hundred articles in different fields including constitutional theory, Internet law, freedom of speech, reproductive rights, jurisprudence, and the theory of ideology. He founded and edits the group blog Balkinization and is a correspondent for the Atlantic Online. He has written widely on legal issues for such publications as the New York Times, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Prospect, Washington Monthly, the New Republic Online, and Slate. His books include: Living Originalism; Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World; The Constitution in 2020 (with Reva Siegel); Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (5th ed. with Brest, Levinson, Amar, and Siegel); Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology; Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (with James Grimmelmann et al); The State of Play: Law, Games and Virtual Worlds (with Beth Noveck); The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life; What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said; and What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said.

Neil Richards

Neil Richards

Neil Richards is the Discussant for Kevin Bankston and Amie Stepanovich’s paper When Robot Eyes Are Watching You: The Law & Policy of Automated Communications Surveillance on Saturday, April 5th at 10:00 AM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Richards is an internationally-recognized expert in privacy law, information law, and freedom of expression. He is a professor of law at Washington University School of Law, a member of the Advisory Board of the Future of Privacy Forum, and a consultant and expert in privacy cases. He graduated in 1997 from the University of Virginia School of Law, and served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. His first book, Intellectual Privacy, will be published by Oxford University Press in 2014.  Prof. Richards’ many writings on privacy and civil liberties have appeared in prominent legal journals such as the Harvard Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, and the California Law Review, among others. He has written for a more general audience in Wired Magazine UK, CNN.com, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. Prof. Richards appears frequently in the media, and he is a past winner of the Washington University School of Law’s Professor of the Year award. At Washington University, he teaches courses on privacy, free speech, and constitutional law. He was born in England, educated in the United States, and lives with his family in St. Louis. He is an avid cyclist and a lifelong supporter of Liverpool Football Club.

David G. Post

David G. Post

David G. Post is the Discussant for Ryan Calo’s paper Robotics and the New Cyberlaw on Saturday, April 5th at 11:30 AM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Post is currently Professor of Law at the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, where he teaches intellectual property law and the law of cyberspace. He is the author of In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace (Oxford), a Jeffersonian view of Internet law and policy and winner of the 2009 Green Bag Legal Writing Award; Cyberlaw: Problems of Policy and Jurisprudence in the Information Age (West); and numerous scholarly articles on intellectual property, the law of cyberspace, and complexity theory (including Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, the second most frequently cited law review article in the field of intellectual property). Post received his Ph.D. in physical anthropology from Yale and his J.D., summa cum laude, from Georgetown Law Center, and clerked for Judge and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court. His writings and additional information may be found online at www.davidpost.com.

Mary Anne Franks

Mary Anne Franks

Mary Anne Franks is the Discussant for Gregory Conti, Woodrow Hartzog, John C. Nelson and Lisa A. Shay’s paper A Conservation Theory of Governance for Automated Law Enforcement on Saturday, April 5th at 1:45 PM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Franks is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law, where she teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, and Family Law. She also serves as the Vice-President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit organization that raises awareness about cyber harassment and advocates for legal and social reform.Her research and teaching interests include cyberlaw, discrimination, free speech, and law and gender. Prior to joining the Miami Law faculty, she was a Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a Senior Consultant for a negotiation consulting firm. Prof. Franks received her J.D. from Harvard Law School. She received her D. Phil and M. Phil from Oxford University, where she studied on a Rhodes Scholarship.

F. Daniel Siciliano

F. Daniel Siciliano

F. Daniel Siciliano is the Moderator for the We Robot Panel on Domestic Drones on Saturday, April 5th at 3:15 PM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Siciliano is the Faculty Director of the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School. He is a legal scholar and entrepreneur with expertise in corporate governance, corporate finance, and immigration law. At Stanford Law he is also associate dean for executive education and special programs and co-director of Stanford’s Directors’ College. He is also the co-originator of the OSCGRS (Open Source Corporate Governance Reporting System) Project. Siciliano is the senior research fellow with the Immigration Policy Center and a frequent commentator on the long-term economic impact of immigration policy and reform. His work has included expert testimony in front of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Prior to joining Stanford Law School, Siciliano co-founded and served as executive director of the Immigration Outreach Center in Phoenix, Arizona. He has launched and led several successful businesses, including LawLogix Group—named three times to the Inc. 500/5000 list. Siciliano serves as a governance consultant and trainer to board directors of several Fortune 500 companies and is a member of the Academic Council of Corporate Board Member magazine.

Comments { 0 }

Kevin Bankston and Amie Stepanovich on “When Robot Eyes Are Watching You: The Law & Policy of Automated Communications Surveillance”

When Robot Eyes Are Watching You: The Law & Policy of Automated Communications Surveillance
Kevin Bankston and Amie Stepanovich

Robots are reading your email, right now.

Whether it’s the NSA scanning for suspicious keywords, Google trying to divine your interests so that it can serve better ads, or your ISP scanning for viruses and spam, computers are routinely scanning the content of your private messages, along with those of millions of other Internet users. Sometimes with your knowledge and consent. Sometimes not.

Kevin Bankston

Kevin Bankston

Many privacy advocates and civil libertarians argue that having robots read your email is just as bad as having a human do it—perhaps even worse, considering robots can work at a much greater scale and speed, and have perfect memories. Others, like Judge Richard Posner, have argued that there’s no privacy violation at all unless a sentient being is doing the violating, and that automated filtering for relevant communications actually protects privacy by preventing humans from looking at the wrong messages. Both Google and the NSA routinely defend their practice of scanning millions of people’s private communications by saying that there are strict limits on which emails people can actually look at. Is that enough?

Amie Stepanovich

Amie Stepanovich

This paper explores what the growing trend toward the automated analysis of masses of private communications means for the law and policy of privacy and surveillance, and will ask the question: when if at all does it “count”, from a privacy policy and privacy law perspective, if a robot is reading your email? Does a government robot’s reading of your email constitute a search or seizure of that email under the Fourth Amendment? And does robotic scanning of your email count as an “intercept” that is regulated by the federal wiretapping statute? This paper examines both questions, looking to statutory and constitutional case law to conclude that from a privacy perspective, having a robot read your email is just as bad—and may be even worse—than its being read by a human.

Kevin Bankston and Amie Stepanovich will present When Robot Eyes Are Watching You: The Law & Policy of Automated Communications Surveillance on Saturday, April 5th at 10:00 AM with discussant Neil Richards at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.

Comments { 0 }

Discussants and Moderators: Day One – April 4th

We Robot 2014 presentations feature Discussants and Moderators who are in integral part of the conference. Discussants are the lead speakers in their session and are responsible for presenting the main themes of the paper and offering their views. Moderators are the ringmasters of their panels.

Elizabeth Grossman

Elizabeth Grossman

Elizabeth Grossman is the We Robot 2014 Discussant for Meg Leta Ambrose’s paper Regulating the Loop: Ironies of Automation Law on Friday, April 4th at 8:45 AM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Dr. Grossman is a Technology Policy Strategist within the Technology Policy Group at Microsoft Corporation. This group helps identify disruptive and emerging technologies, assesses their implications for Microsoft, and drives focused policy engagements with governments and global institutions. The group’s areas of focus are broad and include applications and implications of intelligent and autonomous systems. Prior to Microsoft, Elizabeth was at Lewis-Burke Associates, the Research Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. Elizabeth received a Bachelor of Arts in Physics and Mathematics from Swarthmore College and a Masters and Ph.D. in Computational Physics from the University of Chicago.

Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro is the We Robot 2014 Discussant for Jason Millar’s paper Proxy Prudence – Rethinking Models of Responsibility for Semi-autonomous Robots on Friday, April 4th at 10:15AM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Asaro is Assistant Professor and Director of Graduate Programs for the School of Media Studies at the New School for Public Engagement in New York City. He is the co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, and has written on lethal robotics from the perspective of just war theory and human rights. Dr. Asaro’s research also examines agency and autonomy, liability and punishment, and privacy and surveillance as it applies to consumer robots, industrial automation, smart buildings, and autonomous vehicles.

Jodi Forlizzi

Jodi Forlizzi

Jodi Forlizzi is the We Robot 2014 Discussant for Ann Bartow’s paper Robots as Labor Creating Devices: Robotic Technologies and the Expansion of the Second Shift on Friday, April 4th at 11:45 AM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Forlizzi is an interaction designer and researcher with an Associate Professor position in Design and Human-Computer Interaction at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA. Her research ranges from understanding the limits of human attention to understanding how products and services evoke social behavior, and she designs and researches systems ranging from peripheral displays to social and assistive robots and interfaces to control them.

Kate Darling

Kate Darling

Kate Darling is Moderator for the We Robot 2014 presentation Panel on Robots and Social Justice on Friday, April 4th at 2:00 PM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Darling is a Research Specialist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab and a Fellow at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society and the Yale Information Society Project. After surviving law school, she went on to complete a science doctorate at the ETH Zurich. Her work has covered innovation policy in copyright and patent systems and increasingly focuses on the intersection of law and robotics, with a particular interest in social and ethical issues.

Comments { 0 }

Peter Asaro on Robots, Micro-Airspaces, and the Future of “Public Space”

Robots, Micro-Airspaces, and the Future of “Public Space”
Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro

In United States v. Causby, the Supreme Court conceptualized airspace as a “public highway.”  In the same decision, the Court recognized that landowners must be able to “exercise exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere” in order to exercise full enjoyment of their property.  The precise boundaries of public and private space have always been contested; however, the lack of clear legal definition of “public space” is increasingly problematic given the growing availability and use of drones.

How should the law conceptualize “public space” in relation to drones and robots?  Do drones present legitimately new issues for “public space” jurisprudence, or do they simply present issues of scale? Are there micro-airspaces surrounding individuals and special places that merit the recognition of an increased private interest in airspace?  In what contexts should the law privatize or enclose portions of the “public highway” in favor of protecting privacy rights?  How can the law reconcile a largely public airspace with diverse privacy expectations on the ground?  Should there be restrictions on the use of thermal, infrared, millimeter, or other advanced sensor technologies in the airspaces around public and private spaces? And, to what extent can local and state authorities develop or effect tailored regulations surrounding personal and commercial use of airspace?

Peter Asaro will present Robots, Micro-Airspaces, and the Future of “Public Space” on Saturday, April 5th at 3:15PM on the Panel on Domestic Drones with moderator F. Daniel Siciliano at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.

Comments { 0 }

Provost Thomas J. LeBlanc to Deliver Welcome Remarks

Executive Vice President and Provost of the University of Miami Thomas J. LeBlanc will deliver the We Robot 2014 Welcome Remarks on Friday, April 4th at 8:30 AM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center.

Thomas J. LeBlanc

Thomas J. LeBlanc

In addition to his duties as Executive Vice President and Provost, LeBlanc is also a professor in the Departments of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering. Previously, he served as dean of the college faculty in the College of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering at the University of Rochester. His publications include writings on operating systems, parallel programming, and software engineering. He holds a Ph.D. and a master’s degree in Computer Science from the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from State University of New York at Plattsburgh.

Comments { 0 }

Telerobotics Demonstration with Howard Jay Chizeck

Telerobotics Demonstration with Howard Jay Chizeck

Howard Jay Chizeck

Howard Jay Chizeck

In this demonstration, some recent advances in telerobots for manipulation will be demonstrated. A telerobot is a robot operated by a human operator, most often from a remote location, through a two way communication link.  Robot surgery devices are telerobots (although the surgeon is nearby). Telerobots can be useful in any situation that is too dangerous for human presence, or too small, or too large or too far away. Telerobots can be used for deep water operations (pollution cleanup, scientific sampling, and resource extraction). They can be used for mine removal or for mining, for firefighting or for human guided tasks in high temperature, chemically hazardous, biohazardous or radioactive situations (such as nuclear reactor cleanup). The robot performs the physical action, but it is directed by a human operator, either completely or with shared autonomy.

Technology permitting (internet connection issues, etc), one arm of a remote surgical robot (in Seattle) will be controlled over an internet link from the conference, with a skype video connection providing viewing of the remote operation. There will also be a short video of very recent results demonstrating the hacking of the control of this surgical robot.

Several short videos of research robots that provide the operator a sense of touch, through the use of haptic rendering (for laser surgery and for underwater manipulation). In addition, a demonstration of this haptic rendering (touching a beating heart) will be available for a ‘hands on’ demonstration.

Howard Jay Chizeck will present the Telerobotics Demonstration on Friday, April 4th at 4:00 PM in the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.

Comments { 0 }

Laurel D. Riek and Don Howard on “A Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction Profession”

A Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction Profession
Laurel D. Riek and Don Howard

Laurel D. Riek

Laurel D. Riek

Don Howard

Don Howard

As robots transition into human social environments, a new range of technical, ethical, and legal challenges are arising. This paper discusses the unique ethical challenges facing HRI practitioners designing robots for these spaces, and proposes a code of ethics for the profession. We argue that the affordance of all rights and protections ordinarily assumed in human-human interactions apply to human-robot interaction, and discuss various social, legal, and design considerations to facilitate this.

Laurel D. Riek and Don Howard will present A Code of Ethics for the Human Robot Interaction Profession on Friday, April 4th at 2:00 PM with moderator Kate Darling on the Panel on Robots and Social Justice at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center.

Comments { 0 }

David K. Breyer, Donna A. Dulo, Gale A. Townsley, and Stephen S. Wu on “Risk, Product Liability Trends, Triggers, and Insurance in Commercial Aerial Robots”

Risk, Product Liability Trends, Triggers, and Insurance in Commercial Aerial Robots
David K. Breyer, Donna A. Dulo, Gale A. Townsley, and Stephen S. Wu

Donna A. Dulo

Donna A. Dulo

The commercialization of autonomous aerial robots, “drones” will become pervasive and ubiquitous across the national airspace over the coming years resulting in an increasing risk potential for drone operators and manufacturers. The risk and liability to these entities is entirely unknown due to the lack of historical data on which to determine liability triggers and trends to facilitate the development of accurate insurance underwriting trends. Product liability questions as well remain unanswered with causes of action such as strict product liability,negligence, breach of warranty, and the violation of the law against unfair and deceptive trade practices looming in the near future against operators and manufacturers.

Stephen S. Wu

Stephen S. Wu

This paper presents these issues in light of available risk and accident data, primarily centered on historical military accident data with current accidents and mishaps that have occurred in the national airspace. It will address these issues in the context of manned and unmanned systems with the unique insurance issues and product liability issues that will face commercial owners, operators and manufacturers of drones that seek to limit their risks of liability and damage exposure through the purchase of insurance with both domestic and Lloyd’s of London based markets being discussed.

Donna A. Dulo, Gale A. Townsley, and Stephen S. Wu will be speaking on the Panel on Domestic Drones on Saturday, April 5th at 3:15 PM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center with moderator F. Daniel Siciliano in Coral Gables, Florida.

Comments { 0 }

Gregory Conti, Woodrow Hartzog, John C. Nelson, and Lisa A. Shay on “A Conservation Theory of Governance for Automated Law Enforcement”

A Conservation Theory of Governance for Automated Law Enforcement
Gregory Conti, Woodrow Hartzog, John C. Nelson, and Lisa A. Shay

Lisa A. Shay

Lisa A. Shay

Enforcement of the law has thus far largely been a manual process, one moderated by the discretion of human judgement and finite human resources, which were focused on priority offenses. Increasingly, however, the portions of, and in some cases the entire, law enforcement process from surveillance to punishment can be automated, removing inefficiencies that have also served as natural safeguards against abuse. The ubiquity of networked sensor devices, increases in processing power at lower cost, demands for revenue, and desires to increase public safety and security are leading to an era of productized automated law enforcement systems.

Woodrow Hartzog

Woodrow Hartzog

Today, we see such systems increasingly manifest in well-defined specialty cases, such as red light cameras and tax irregularity detection software.

However, the future portends an ever-increasing range of crimes that can be enforced through automated law enforcement systems. These advances bring opportunities for both good and harm. The legal, law enforcement, and policy making communities, as well as the general public, must carefully consider potential advantages, weigh the social cost and other risks, and challenge unsubstantiated claims of benefits.

Gregory Conti

Gregory Conti

To assist in these efforts, this paper provides end-to-end analysis of automatic law enforcement systems. It examines the key components and their amenability to automation, and how changes to the current state of the art might alter how laws and statutes could be enforced.

John C. Nelson

John C. Nelson

Our results indicate that automated law enforcement systems will gain increasing power and effectiveness but if left unchecked could cause significant social harm despite, ironically, attempting to improve public welfare.

Lisa A. Shay, Woodrow Hartzog, and Gregory Conti will be speaking on Saturday, April 5th at 1:45 PM with discussant Mary Anne Franks at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.

Comments { 0 }

Aaron Jay Saiger on “Robots in School: Disability and the Promise (or Spectre?) of Radical Educational Equality”

Robots in School: Disability and the Promise (or Specter?) of Radical Educational Equality
Aaron Jay Saiger

A recent New York Times story: A nine-year-old South Carolinian named Lexie Kinder, suffering from an immune disorder, is tutored for years at home to avoid infection. Then she is taught to control a VGo, a “camera-and-Internet-enabled robot that swivels around the classroom and streams two-way video between her school and house.” The VGo, dolled up by Lexie in a pink tutu, ends the little girl’s pervasive isolation. Her robot, which looks like a laptop and webcam bolted to a child-height cart, sits at an ordinary school desk, interacts with both teachers and classmates, stands in line for recess, and even is evacuated with its controller’s friends during fire drills.

Aaron Jay Saiger

Aaron Jay Saiger

For any parent of a disabled child — for any parent, really — the slide show that the Times posted to its website to accompany its story grips both mind and heart. Technology, in particular the robot-plus-internet model, seems suddenly to offer real hope of mitigating the many educational disadvantages faced by the disabled. It tantalizingly hints not only at the possibility of genuine equality of educational opportunity for disabled children, but of real social integration to boot. Were I the parent of a child like Lexie, I would be exuberant. I would also would be on the phone to the VGo distributor. Were I the parent of a disabled child whose challenges were different from Lexie’s, I would likely be nearly as enthusiastic, joyously welcoming the possibility of adapting her family’s model to my own child’s needs. The potential of robotic technology to realize these kinds of equality is very real. But this paper argues that, in the context of the legal structures that govern education of the disabled, robotic technology is also deeply threatening. The same robots that can open schoolhouse doors that had been closed to individual children with disabilities can, collectively, work to slam those doors shut for the disabled as a class. The idea of “special” education is that the disabled have special needs that must be protected by a grant of special legal rights. The very ability of robots to satisfy those needs in ways heretofore unimagined has the potential to erode the justifications and the institutions that guarantee special legal rights. This could move disabled children backwards, towards less equal educational opportunity.

Aaron Jay Saiger will present Robots in School: Disability and the Promise (or Specter?) of Radical Educational Equality on Friday, April 4th at 2:00 PM with moderator Kate Darling on the Panel on Robots and Social Justice at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.

Comments { 0 }