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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.