Consumer Cloud Robotics and the Fair Information Practice Principles: The Policy Risks and Opportunities Ahead
Kris Hauser, Andrew A. Proia, Drew T. Simshaw

Rapid technological innovation has made commercially accessible consumer robotics a reality. At the same time, individuals and organizations are turning to “the cloud” for more convenient and cost effective data storage and management. It seemed only inevitable that these two technologies would merge to create “cloud robotics,” described by Google Research Scientist Dr. James Kuffner as “a new approach to robotics that takes advantage of the Internet as a resource for massively parallel computation and sharing of vast data resources.” By making robots lighter, cheaper, and more efficient, cloud robotics could be the catalyst for a mainstream consumer robotics marketplace. However, this new industry would join a host of modern consumer technologies that seem to have rapidly outpaced the legal and regulatory regimes implemented to protect consumers.  Recently, consumer advocates and the tech industry have focused their attention on information privacy and security, and how to establish sufficient safeguards for the collection, retention, and dissemination of personal information while still allowing technologies to flourish.

Underlying a majority of these proposals, whether it be through legislation or industry self-regulation, are a set of practices, articulated in the 1970s, that address how personal information should be collected, used, retained, managed, and deleted, known as the Fair Information Practice Principles (“FIPPs”).

This paper first will provide a brief history of the FIPPs, focusing primarily on their influence in the consumer space. This section will examine how the original FIPPs came into existence and how they have taken shape in the national and international communities. It will also detail three influential variations of the FIPPs which are likely to influence the information privacy and security regulations of cloud robotics in U.S. consumer products. Second, this paper will introduce many within the information law and policy realm to the vastly advancing (yet little known) technology known as cloud robotics. Then, with the help of privacy fellows and roboticists, the paper dissects how each principle, and its relevant variations, will affect the efficiency and interoperability of cloud robotics in the consumer marketplace.

By providing practical observations of how cloud robotics may emerge in a consumer marketplace regulated by the FIPPs, this research will help both the information privacy and robotics fields in beginning to address the policy risks and opportunities ahead.

Andrew A. Proia and Drew T. Simshaw will discuss “Consumer Cloud Robotics and the Fair Information Practice Principles: The Policy Risks and Opportunities Ahead” as part of the Panel on Robots and Social Justice moderated by Kate Darling on Friday, April 4th at 2:00 PM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.

Proxy Prudence – Rethinking Models of Responsibility for Semi-autonomous Robots
Jason Millar

As robots become more autonomous—capable of acting in complex ways, independent of direct human interaction—their actions will challenge traditional notions of responsibility. How, for example, do we sort out responsibility when a self-driving car swerves this way or that in a situation where all possible outcomes lead to harm? This paper explores the question of responsibility from both philosophical and legal perspectives, by examining the relationship between designers, semi-autonomous robots and users. Borrowing concepts from the philosophy of technology, bioethics and law, I argue that in certain use contexts we can reasonably describe a robot as acting as a moral proxy on behalf of a person. In those cases I argue it is important to instantiate the proxy relationship in a morally justifiable way. I examine two questions that are helpful in determining how to appropriately instantiate proxy relationships with semi-autonomous robots, and that we can also ask when attempting to sort out responsibility: 1) On whose behalf was the robot acting?; and 2) On whose behalf ought the robot to have been acting?

Focusing on proxy relationships allows us to shift our focus away from a strictly causal model of responsibility and focus also on a proxy model informed by an ethical analysis of the nature of the designer-artefact-user relationship. By doing so I argue that we gain some traction on problems of responsibility with semi-autonomous robots. I examine two cases to demonstrate how a shift towards a proxy model of responsibility, and away from a strictly causal model of responsibility helps to manage risks and provides a more accurate accounting of responsibility in some use contexts. I offer some suggestions how we might decide whom a robot ought legitimately to be acting on behalf of, while offering some thoughts on what legal and ethical implications my argument carries for designers and users.

Jason Millar will present Proxy Prudence – Rethinking Models of Responsibility for Semi-autonomous Robots on Friday, April 4th at 10:15 AM with discussant Peter Asaro at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.

This is the first in a series of posts we will be running about the upcoming presentations at We Robot 2014. Registration is still open. Subscribe to our RSS feed or follow on us on Twitter for more updates.

Regulating the Loop: Ironies of Automation Law
Meg Leta Ambrose

Rapid developments in sensors, computing, and robotics, as well as power, kinetics, control, telecommunication, and artificial intelligence have presented opportunities to further integrate sophisticated automation across society. With these opportunities come questions about the ability of current laws and policies to protect important social values new technologies may threaten. As sophisticated automation moves beyond the cages of factories and cock pits, the need for a legal approach suitable to guide an increasingly automated future becomes more pressing.

This paper analyzes examples of legal approaches to automation thus far by legislative, administrative, judicial, state, and international bodies. The case studies reveal an interesting irony: while automation regulation is intended to protect and promote human values, by focusing on the capabilities of the automation, this approach results in less protection of human values. The irony is similar to those pointed out by Lisanne Bainbridge in 1983, when she described how designing automation to improve the life of the operator using an automation-centered approach actually made the operator’s life worse and more difficult.

The ironies that result from automation-centered legal approaches are a product of the neglect of the sociotechnical nature of automation: the relationships between man and machine is situated and interdependent; humans will always be in the loop; and reactive policies ignore the need for general guidance for ethical and accountable automation design and implementation. Like system engineers three decades ago, policymakers must adjust the focus of legal treatment of automation to recognize the interdependence of man and machine to avoid the ironies of automation law and meet the goals of ethical integration. The article proposes that the existing models for automated system design and principles currently utilized for safe and actual implementation be added to for ethical and sociotechnical legal approach to automation.

Meg Leta Ambrose will present “The Law and the Loop” with discussant Elizabeth Grossman on Friday, April 4th at 8:45 AM at the University of Miami Newman Alumni Center in Coral Gables, Florida.