Page 1
RobotsandPrivacy
M.RyanCalo
Introduction
Robotsarecommonplacetodayinfactoriesandonbattlefields.Theconsumer
marketforrobotsisrapidlycatchingup.Aworldwidesurveyofrobotsbythe
UnitedNationsin2006revealed3.8millioninoperation,2.9millionofwhich
wereforpersonalorserviceuse.By2007,therewere4.1millionrobotsworking
justinpeople’shomes[Singer2009,7‐8;Sharkey2008,3].MicrosoftfounderBill
Gateshasgonesofarastoargueinanopinionpiecethatweareatthepoint
nowwithpersonalrobotsthatwewereinthe1970swithpersonalcomputers,of
whichtherearenowmanybillions[Gates2007].Asthesesophisticated
machinesbecomemoreprevalent—asrobotsleavethefactoryfloorand
battlefieldandenterthepublicandprivatesphereinmeaningfulnumbers—
societywillshiftinunanticipatedways.Thischapterexploreshowthe
mainstreamingofrobotsmightspecificallyaffectprivacy.
Itisnothardtoimaginewhyrobotsraiseprivacyconcerns.Practicallyby
definition,robotsareequippedwiththeabilitytosense,process,andrecordthe
worldaroundthem[Denningetal.2008;Singer2009,67].iiRobotscangoplaces
humanscannotgo,seethingshumanscannotsee.Robotsare,firstand
Page 2
foremost,ahumaninstrument.Andafterindustrialmanufacturing,theprinciple
usetowhichwe’veputthatinstrumenthasbeensurveillance.
Yetincreasingthepowertoobserveisjustoneofwaysinwhichrobots
mayimplicateprivacywithinthenextdecade.Thischapterbreakstheeffectsof
robotsonprivacyintothreecategories—directsurveillance,increasedaccess,
andsocialmeaning—withthegoalofintroducingthereadertoawidevarietyof
issues.Wherepossible,thechapterpointstowardwaysinwhichwemight
mitigateorredressthepotentialimpactofrobotsonprivacy,butacknowledges
thatinsomecasesredresswillbedifficultunderthecurrentstateofprivacylaw.
Asstated,theclearestwayinwhichrobotsimplicateprivacyisthatthey
greatlyfacilitatedirectsurveillance.Robotsofallshapesandsizes,equippedwith
anarrayofsophisticatedsensorsandprocessors,greatlymagnifythehuman
capacitytoobserve.Themilitaryandlawenforcementhavealreadybegunto
scaleuprelianceonrobotictechnologytobettermonitorforeignanddomestic
populations.Butrobotsalsopresentcorporationsandindividualswithnewtools
ofobservationinarenasasdiverseassecurity,voyeurism,andmarketing.This
widespreadavailabilityisitselfproblematicinthatitcouldoperatetodampen
constitutionalprivacyguaranteesbyshiftingcitizenexpectations.
Asecondwayinwhichrobotsimplicateprivacyisthattheyintroduce
newpointsofaccesstohistoricallyprotectedspaces.Thehomerobotin
Page 3
particularpresentsanovelopportunityforgovernment,privatelitigants,and
hackerstoaccessinformationabouttheinteriorofalivingspace.Robotsonthe
markettodayinteractuncertainlywithfederalelectronicprivacylawsand,asat
leastonerecentstudyhasshown,severalpopularrobotproductsarevulnerable
totechnologicalattacks—allthemoredangerousinthattheygivehackersaccess
toobjectsandroomsinsteadoffoldersandfiles.
Societycanlikelynegotiatetheseinitialeffectsofsurveillanceand
unwantedaccesswithbetterlawsandengineeringpractices.Butthereisathird,
morenuancedcategoryofroboticprivacyharm—onefarlessamenableto
reform.Thisthirdwayrobotsimplicateprivacyflowsfromtheiruniquesocial
meaning.Robotsareincreasinglyhuman‐likeandsociallyinteractiveindesign,
makingthemmoreengagingandsalienttotheirend‐usersandthelarger
community.Manystudiesdemonstratethatpeoplearehardwiredtoreactto
heavilyanthropomorphictechnologiessuchasrobotsasthoughapersonwere
actuallypresent,includingwithrespecttothesensationofbeingobservedand
evaluated.
Thatrobotshavethissocialdimensiontranslatesintoatleastthree
distinctprivacydangers.First,theintroductionofsocialrobotsintolivingand
otherspaceshistoricallyreservedforsolitudemayreducethedwindling
opportunitiesforinteriorityandself‐reflectionthatprivacyoperatestoprotect
Page 4
[Calo2010,842‐49].Second,socialrobotsmaybeinauniquepositiontoextract
informationfrompeople[cf.Kerr2004].Theycanleveragemostofthesame
advantagesofhumans(fear,praise,etc)ininformationgathering.Buttheyalso
haveperfectmemories,aretireless,andcannotbeembarrassed,givingrobots
advantagesoverhumanpersuaders[Fogg2003,213].
Finally,thesocialnatureofrobotsmayleadtonewtypesofhighly
sensitivepersonalinformation—implicatingwhatmightbecalled“setting
privacy.”Itsayslittleaboutanindividualhowoftenherunshisdishwasheror
whetherhesetsittoautodry.iiiItsaysalotabouthimwhat“companionship
program”herunsonhispersonalrobot.Robotsexistsomewhereinthetwilight
betweenpersonandobjectandcanbeexquisitelymanipulatedandtailored.A
descriptionofhowapersonprogramsandinteractswitharobotmightreadlike
asessionwithapsychologist—exceptrecorded,andwithouttheattendant
logisticorlegalprotections.
Thesecategoriesofsurveillance,access,andsocialmeaningdonotstand
apart—theyarecontingentandinterrelated.Forexample:reportshavesurfaced
ofinsurgentshackingintomilitarydronesurveillanceequipmentusing
commonlyavailablesoftware.Onecouldalsoimaginethepurposiveintroduction
bygovernmentofsocialmachinesintoprivatespacesinordertodeter
unwantedbehaviorbycreatingtheimpressionofobservation.Noristhe
Page 5
implicationofrobotsforprivacyentirelynegative—vulnerablepopulationssuch
asvictimsofdomesticviolencemayonedayuserobotstopreventaccessto
theirpersonorhomeandpoliceagainstabuse.Robotscouldalsocarryout
sensitivetasksonbehalfofhumansallowingforgreateranonymity.Theseand
othercorrelationsbetweenprivacyandroboticswillnodoubtplayoutindetail
overthenextdecadeandcentury.
RobotsThatSpy
Robotsofallkindsareincreasingthemilitary’salreadyvastcapacityfordirect
surveillance[Singer2009].Enormous,unmanneddronescanstayaloft,
undetected,fordaysandrelaysurfaceactivityacrossabroadterritory.Smaller
dronescansweeplargeareasaswellasstakeoutparticularlocationsby
hoveringnearbyandalertingabaseupondetectingactivity.Backpack‐size
dronespermitsoldierstoseeoverhillsandscoutshortdistances.Themilitaryis
exploringtheuseofevensmallerrobotscapableofflyinguptoahouseand
perchingonawindowsill.
Someoftheconceptsunderdevelopmentarestrangerthanfiction.
Althoughnotdevelopedspecificallyforsurveillance,ShigeoHirose’sNinjaisa
robotthatclimbshigh‐risesusingsuctionpads.Otherrobotscanseparateor
changeshapeinordertoclimbstairsorfitthroughtightspaces.ThePentagonis
Page 6
reportedlyexploringhowtomergehardwarewithliveinsectsthatwouldpermit
themtobecontrolledremotelyandrelayaudio[Schachtman2009].
Inadditiontotheabilitytoscalewalls,wrigglethroughpipes,flyupto
windows,crawlunderdoors,hoverfordays,andhideatgreataltitudes,robots
maycomewithprogrammingthatenhancestheircapacityforstealth.
ResearchersatSeoulNationalUniversityinSouthKorea,forinstance,are
developinganalgorithmthatwouldassistarobotinhidingfrom,andsneaking
upupon,apotentialintruder.Wirelessorsatellitenetworkingpermitslarge‐
scalecooperationamongrobots.Sensortechnology,too,isadvancing.Military
robotscanbeequippedwithcameras,laserorsonarrangefinders,magnetic
resonanceimaging(MRI),thermalimaging,GPS,andothertechnologies.
Theuseofroboticsurveillanceisnotlimitedtothemilitary.AsNoel
Sharkeyhasobserved,lawenforcementagenciesinmultiplepartsoftheworld
arealsodeployingmoreandmorerobotstocarryoutsurveillanceandother
tasks[Sharkey2008].Reportshaverecentlysurfacedofunmannedaerial
vehiclesbeingusedforsurveillanceintheUK.Thedronesare“programmedto
takeoffandlandontheirown,stayairborneforupto15hoursandreach
heightsof20,000feet,makingtheminvisiblefromtheground”[Lewis2010].
DronepilotprogramshavebeenreportedinHouston,Texas,andotherborder
regionswithintheUnitedStates.
Page 7
Norisroboticsurveillancelimitedtothegovernment.Privateentitiesare
freetoleaseorbuyunmanneddronesorotherrobotictechnologytosurvey
property,securepremises,ormonitoremployees.Reportershavebegunto
speculateaboutthepossibilityofrobotpaparazzi—airorlandrobots“assigned”
tofollowaspecificcelebrity.ArtistKenRenaldobuiltaseriesofsuch“paparazzi
bots”toexplorehuman‐computerinteractioninthecontextofpopculture.
Thereplacementofhumanstaffwithrobotsalsopresentsnovel
opportunitiesfordatacollectionbymediatingcommercialtransactions.Consider
robotshoppingassistantsnowinuseinJapan.Thesemachinesidentifyand
approachcustomersandtrytoguidethemtowardaproduct.Unlikeordinary
storeclerks,however,robotsarecapableofrecordingandprocessingevery
aspectofthetransaction.Facerecognitiontechnologypermitseasyre‐
identification.Suchmeticulous,point‐blankcustomerdatacouldbeof
extraordinaryuseinbothlosspreventionandmarketingresearch.iv
Muchhasbeenwrittenaboutthedangersofubiquitoussurveillance.
VisibledronespatrollingacityinvokeGeorgeOrwell’sNinteenEighty‐Four.But
giventhevarietyindesignandcapabilitiesofspyrobotsandothertechnologies,
DanielSolove’svisionmaybeclosertothetruth.SoloverejectstheBig‐Brother
metaphoranddescribeslivinginthemodernworldbyinvokingtheworkofFranz
Kafka,whereanindividualneverquiteknowswhetherinformationisbeing
Page 8
gatheredorusedagainsther[Solove2004,36‐41].Theunprecedented
surveillancerobotspermitimplicateeachofthecommonconcernsassociated
withpervasivemonitoring,includingthechillingofspeechandinterferencewith
self‐determination[Schwartz1999].AstheSupremeCourthasnoted,excessive
surveillancemayevenviolatetheFirstAmendment’sprohibitiononthe
interferencewithspeechandassembly[UnitedStatesv.UnitedStatesDistrict
Court;Solove2007].
Thepotentialuseofrobotstovastlyincreaseourcapacityforsurveillance
presentsavarietyofspecificethicalandlegalchallenges.Theethicaldilemmain
manywaysechoesJosephWeizenbaum’sdiscussionofvoicerecognition
technologyinhisseminalcritiqueofartificialintelligence,Computers,Power,
andHumanReason.WeizenbaumwonderedaloudwhytheUSNavywasfunding
nolessthanfourartificialintelligencelabsinthe1970stoworkonvoice
recognitiontechnology.Heasked,onlytobetoldthattheNavywantedtobe
abletodriveshipsbyvoicecommand.Weizenbaumsuspectedthatthe
governmentwouldinsteadusevoicerecognitiontechnologytomakemonitoring
communications“verymucheasierthanitisnow”[Weizenbaum1976,272].
Today,artificialintelligencepermitstheautomatedrecognitionanddatamining
thatunderpinmodernsurveillance.
Page 9
Roboticistsmightsimilarlyaskquestionsabouttheusestowhichtheir
technologywillbeput—inparticular,whethertheonlyconceivableuseofthe
robotismassiveorcovertsurveillance.Asisalreadyoccurringinthedigital
space,roboticistsmightsimultaneouslybegintodevelopprivacyenhancing
robotsthatcouldhelpindividualstopreservetheirprivacyintomorrow’s
complexworld.Thesemightincluderobotsthatshieldthehomeorpersonfrom
unwantedattention,roboticsurrogates,orotherinnovationsfornowfoundonly
insciencefiction.
Theuncheckeduseofdronesandotherrobotictechnologycouldalso
operatetodampentheprivacyprotectionsenjoyedbycitizensunderthelaw.
Wellintothe20thcentury,theprotectionoftheFourthAmendmentofthe
Constitutionagainstunreasonablegovernmentintrusionsintoprivatespaces
wastiedtothecommonlawoftrespass.Thus,ifatechniqueofsurveillancedid
notinvolvethephysicalinvasionofproperty,nosearchcouldbesaidtooccur.
TheUSSupremeCourteventually“decoupledviolationofaperson’sFourth
Amendmentrightsfromtrespassviolationsofhisproperty”[Kyllov.United
States].Courtsnowlooktowhetherthegovernmenthadviolatedacitizen’s
expectationofprivacythatsocietywaspreparedtorecognizeasreasonable[Id.].
Whetheragivenexpectationofprivacyisreasonablehascometoturnin
partonwhetherthetechnologyortechniquethegovernmentemployedwas“in
Page 10
generalpublicuse”—theideabeingthatifcitizensmightreadilyanticipate
discovery,anyexpectationofprivacywouldbeunreasonable.Thebarfor
“general”and“public”hasprovenlowerthanthesewordsmightsuggeston
theirface.Althoughfewpeoplehaveaccesstoaplaneorhelicopter,theCourt
hasheldtheuseofeithertospotmarijuanagrowingonapropertynotto
constituteasearchundertheFourthAmendment[Californiav.Ciraolo;Floridav.
Riley].Undertheprevailinglogic,itshouldbesufficientthat“anymemberofthe
public”couldlegallyoperateadroneorothersurveillancerobottoobviatethe
needforlawenforcementtosecureawarranttodoso.v
Duetotheirmobility,size,andsheer,inhumanpatience,robotspermita
varietyofotherwiseuntenabletechniques.Dronesmakeitpossibleroutinelyto
circlepropertieslookingforthatmissingrooftileorotheropeningthoughttobe
ofimportanceinRiley.Asmallrobotcouldlingeronthesidewalkacrossfroma
doorwayorgarageandwaituntilitopenedtophotographtheinterior.Adrone
orautomatedvehiclecouldpeerintoeverywindowinaneighborhoodfromsuch
avantagepointthatanordinaryofficeronfootcouldseeintothehousewithout
eventriggeringtheprohibitionon“enhancement”ofsensesprohibitedinpre‐
KyllocasessuchasUnitedStatesv.Taborda,whichinvolvedtheuseofa
telescope.Suchpracticesgreatlydiminishprivacy;ifwecametoanticipate
Page 11
them,itisnotobviousunderthecurrentstateofthelawthattheseactivities
wouldviolatetheConstitution.
Oneschoolofthought—introducedtocyberlawbyLawrenceLessigand
championedbyRichardPosner,OrinKerr,andotherthoughtsleaders—goesso
farastoholdthatnosearchoccursundertheFourthAmendmentunlessand
untilahumanbeingactuallyaccessestherelevantinformation.Thisviewfinds
supportincaseslikeUnitedStatesv.PlaceandIllinoisv.Caballeswhereno
warrantwasrequiredforadogtosniffabagonthetheorythatthehuman
policeofficerdidnotaccessthecontentofthebagandlearnedonlyaboutthe
presenceorabsenceofcontraband,inwhichthedefendantcouldhaveno
privacyinterest.Onecanatleastimaginearulepermittingrobotstosearchfor
certainillegalactivitiesbyalmostanymeans—forinstance,x‐ray,nightvision,or
thermalimaging—andalertlawenforcementonlyshouldcontrabandbe
detected.Leftunchecked,thesecircumstancescombinetodiminishevenfurther
theprivacyprotectionsrealisticallyavailabletocitizensandconsumers.
Robots:AWindowIntoTheHome
Robotscanbedesignedanddeployedasapowerfulinstrumentofsurveillance.
Equallyproblematic,however,isthedegreetowhicharobotmight
inadvertentlygrantaccesstohistoricallyprivatespacesandactivities.In
Page 12
particular,theuseofarobotcapableofconnectingtotheInternetwithinthe
homecreatesthepossibilityforunprecedentedaccesstotheinteriorofthe
housebylawenforcement,civillitigants,andhackers.Asamatterofbothlawof
technology,suchaccesscouldturnouttobesurprisinglyeasy.
Withpricescomingdownandnewplayersenteringtheindustry,the
marketforhomerobots—sometimescalledpersonalorservicerobots—is
rapidlyexpanding.Homerobotscancomeequippedwithanarrayofsensors,
includingpotentiallystandardandinfraredcameras,sonarorlaserrangefinders,
odordetectors,accelerometers,andglobalpositioningsystems(“GPS”).Several
varietiesofhomerobotsconnectwirelesslytocomputersortheInternet,some
torelayimagesandsoundsacrosstheInternetinrealtime,otherstoupdate
programming.ThepopularWowWeeRovio,forinstance,isacommercially
availablerobotusedforsecurityandentertainment.Itcanbecontrolled
remotelyviatheInternetandbroadcastsbothsoundandvideotoawebsite
controlpanel.
Accessbylaw.Whatdoestheintroductionofmobile,networkedsensors
intothehomemeanforcitizenprivacy?Ataminimum,thegovernmentwillbe
abletosecureawarrantforrecordedinformationwithsufficientlegalprocess,
physicallyseizingtherobotorgainingliveaccesstothestreamofsensorydata.
Justaslawenforcementispresentlyabletocompelin‐carnavigationproviders
Page 13
toturnonamicrophoneinone’scar[Zittrain2008,110]ortelephonecompanies
tocompromisemobilephones,socouldthegovernmenttapintothedata
streamfromahomerobot—orevenmaneuvertherobottotheroomorobjectit
wishestoobserve.
Themerefactthatamachineismakinganextensive,unguidedrecordof
eventsinthehomerepresentsaprivacyrisk.Still,werewarrantsrequiredto
accessrobotsensorydatainallinstances,robotpurchaserswouldarguably
sufferonlyanincrementallossofprivacy.Policecanalreadyenter,search,and
plantrecordingdevicesinthehomewithsufficientlegalprocess.Dependingon
howcourtscometoapplyelectronicprivacylaws,however,muchdatagathered
byhomerobotscouldbeaccessedbythegovernmentinresponsetoamere
subpoenaorevenvoluntarilyuponrequest.
Commerciallyavailablerobotscanpatrolahouseandrelayimagesand
soundswirelesslytoacomputerandacrosstheInternet.Therobot’sownerneed
onlytraveltoawebsiteandlogintoaccessthefootage.Dependingonthe
configuration,imagesandsoundscouldeasilybecapturedandstoredremotely
forlaterretrievalortoestablisha“buffer”(i.e.,foruninterruptedviewingona
slowInternetconnection).Orconsiderasecondscenario:afamilypurchasesa
homerobotthat,uponintroductiontoanewenvironment,automatically
exploreseveryinchofhousetowhichithasaccess.Lackingtheonboard
Page 14
capabilitytoprocessallofthedata,therobotperiodicallyuploadsittothe
manufacturerforanalysisandretrieval.vi
Intheseexistingandplausiblescenarios,thegovernmentisinaposition
toaccessinformationaboutthehomeactivities—historicallysubjecttothe
highestlevelofprotectionagainstintrusionbythegovernment[Silvermanv.
UnitedStates]—withrelativelylittleprocess.Asamatterofconstitutionallaw,
individualsthatvoluntarilycommitinformationtothirdpartieslosesome
measureofprotectionforthatinformation[UnitedStatesv.Miller].Particularly
whereaccessisroutine,suchinformationisnolongerentitledtoFourth
Amendmentprotectionunderwhatisknownasthe“third‐partydoctrine”
[Freiwald2007,37‐49].
Federallawimposesaccesslimitationsoncertainformsofelectronic
information.TheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyActlaysoutthe
circumstancesunderwhichentitiescandisclose“electroniccommunications”to
whichtheyhaveaccessbyvirtueofprovidingaservice[18USC§2510].Howthis
statutemightapplytoarobotprovider,manufacturer,website,orotherservice,
however,isunclear.Dependingonhowacourtcharacterizestheentitystoring
ortransmittingthedata—forinstance,asa“remotecomputingservice”—law
enforcementcouldgainaccesstosomerobotsensorydatawithoutrecoursetoa
judge.
Page 15
Indeed,acourtcouldconceivablycharacterizetherelevantentityas
fallingoutofthestatute’sprotectionaltogether,inwhichcasetheservice
providerwouldbefreetoturnoverdetailsofcustomers’homesvoluntarilyupon
request.Privatelitigantscouldalsotheoreticallysecureacourtorderforrobot
sensorydatastoredremotelytoshow,forinstance,thataspousehadbeen
unfaithful.Again,duetothejealousywithwhichconstitutional,federal,and
stateprivacylawhashistoricallyguardedthehome,thislevelofaccesstothe
innerworkingsofahouseholdwithsolittleprocesswouldrepresentaserious
departure.
Accessbyvulnerability.Governmentandprivatepartiesmightaccess
robotdatatransmittedacrosstheInternetorstoredremotelythroughrelatively
lightlegalprocess.Butthestateofcurrenttechnologyalsoofferspractical
meansforindividualstogainaccessto,evencontrolof,robotsinthehome.If,as
BillGatespredicts,robotssoonreachtheprevalenceandutilitythatpersonal
computerspossesstoday,lessthansolidsecuritycouldhaveprofound
implicationsforhouseholdprivacy.
RecentworkbyTamaraDenning,TadayoshiKohno,andcolleaguesat
UniversityofWashingtonhasshownthatcommerciallyavailablehomerobots
areinsecureandcouldbehijackedbyhackers.TheUniversityofWashington
teamresearcherslookedatthreerobots—theWowWeeRovio,theErector
Page 16
Spykee,andtheWowWeeRobotSapienV2—eachequippedwithcamerasand
capableofwirelessnetworking.Theteamuncoverednumerousvulnerabilities.
AttackerscouldidentifyRovioorSpykeedatastreamsbytheiruniquesignatures,
forinstance,andeavesdroponnearbyconversationorevenoperatetherobot.vii
Attackscouldbelaunchedwithinwirelessrange(e.g.,rightoutsidethehome)or
bysniffingpacketsofinformationtravelingbyInternetprotocol.Asophisticated
hackermightevenbeabletolocatehomerobotfeedsontheInternetusinga
searchengine[Denningetal.2009].viii
Thepotentialtocompromisedevicesinthehomeisinasenseanold
problem;theinsecurityofwebcamshaslongbeenanissueofconcern.The
differencewithhomerobotsisthattheycanmoveandmanipulate,inaddition
torecordandrelay.Acompromisedrobotcould,astheUniversityof
Washingtonteampointsout,pickupsparekeysandplacetheminapositionto
bephotographedforlaterduplication.(Oritcouldsimplydropthemoutsidethe
doorthroughamailslot.)Arobothackedbyneighborhoodkidscouldvandalizea
homeorfrightenachildorelderlyperson.Thesesortsofphysicalintrusionsinto
thehomecompromisesecurityandexacerbatethefeelingofvulnerabilitytoa
greaterdegreethanwaspreviouslyfeasible.
RobotsAsSocialActors
Page 17
Theprecedingsectionsidentifiedtwokeywaysinwhichrobotsimplicate
privacy.First,theyaugmentthesurveillancecapacityofthegovernmentor
privateactors.Second,theycreateopportunitiesforlegalandtechnicalaccessto
historicallyprivatespacesandinformation.Respondingtothesechallengeswill
bedifficult,butthepathisrelativelyclearfromtheperspectiveoflawandpolicy.
Asalegalmatter,forinstance,theSupremeCourtcoulduncoupleFourth
Amendmentprotectionsfromtheavailabilityoftechnology,holdthat
indiscriminateroboticpatrolsareunreasonable,orotherwiseaccountfornew
formsofroboticsurveillance.
TheFederalTradeCommission,theprimaryfederalagencyresponsible
forconsumerprotection,couldstepintoregulatewhatinformationarobotic
shoppingassistantcouldcollectaboutconsumers.TheCommissioncouldalso
bringanenforcementproceedingagainstarobotcompanyforinadequate
securityunderSection5oftheFederalTradeCommissionAct(asithasfor
websitesandothercompanies).CongresscouldamendtheElectronic
CommunicationsPrivacyActtorequireawarrantforvideooraudiofootage
relayedfromtheinteriorofahome.Asofthiswriting,coalitionsofnon‐profits
andcompanieshavepetitionedthegovernmenttoreformthisActalonga
numberofrelevantlines.
Page 18
Beyondtheseregulatorymeasures,roboticistscouldfollowtheleadof
Weizenbaumandothersandaskquestionsabouttheethicalramificationsof
buildingmachinescapableofubiquitoussurveillance.Roboethicistsurgeformal
adoptionbyroboticistsoftheethicalcodeknownasPAPA(privacy,accuracy,
intellectualproperty,andaccess)developedforcomputers[Veruggioand
Operto2008,1510‐11].Variousstateandfederallawenforcementagencies
couldestablishvoluntaryguidelinesandlimitsontheuseofpolicerobots.And
roboticscompaniescouldlearnfromDenningandhercolleaguesandbuildin
betterprotectionsforhomerobotssuchthattheycouldnotbeaseasily
compromisedbyhackers.
Thissectionraisesanotherdimensionofrobots’potentialimpacton
privacy,onethatisnotaseasytoremedyasalegalortechnicalmatter.It
exploreshowourreactionstorobotsassocialtechnologiesimplicateprivacyin
novelways.Thetendencytoanthropomorphizerobotsiscommon,evenwhere
therobothardlyresemblesalivingbeing.TechnologyforecasterPaulSaffo
observesmanypeoplenametheirroboticvacuumcleanersandtakethemon
vacation.Reportshaveemergedofsoldierstreatingbomb‐diffusingdroneslike
comradesandevenriskingtheirlivestorescuea“wounded”robot.
Meanwhile,robotsareincreasinglydesignedtointeractmoresocially.
Resemblancetoapersonmakesrobotsmoreengagingandincreasesacceptance
Page 19
andcooperation.Thisturnsouttobeimportantinmanyearlyrobot
applications.Socialrobotswillbedeployedtocarefortheelderlyanddisabled,
forexample,andtodiagnosisautismandotherissuesinchildren.Theyneedto
beacceptedbypeopleinordertodoso.Atthedarkerendofthespectrum,
someroboticistsarebuildingrobotswithaneyetowardsexualgratification;
otherspredictthat“loveandsexwithrobots”isjustaroundthecorner[Levy
2007].Robots’socialmeaningcouldhaveaprofoundeffectonprivacyandthe
valuesitprotects,onethatismorecomplexandhardertoresolvethananything
mentionedthusfarinthischapter.
Robotsandsolitude.Anextensiveliteratureincommunicationsand
psychologydemonstratesthathumansarehardwiredtoreacttosocialmachines
asthoughapersonwerereallypresent.ixGenerallyspeaking,themorehuman‐
likethetechnology,thegreaterthereactionwillbe.Peoplecooperatewith
sufficientlyhuman‐likemachines,arepolitetothem,declinetosustaineye‐
contact,declinetomistreatorroughhousewiththem,andrespondpositivelyto
theirflattery[ReevesandNass1996].Thereisevenaneurologicalcorrelationto
thereaction;thesame“mirror”neuronsfireinthepresenceofrealandvirtual
socialagents.
Importantly,thebrain’shardwiredpropensitytotreatsocialmachinesas
humanextendstothesensationofbeingobservedandevaluated.Introducinga
Page 20
simulatedperson(orsimplyaface,voice,oreyes)intoanenvironmentleadsto
variouschangesinbehavior.Theserangefromgivingmoreinacharitygameto
payingforcoffeemoreoftenonthehonorsystemtomakingmoreerrorswhen
completingdifficulttasks.Peoplediscloselessandself‐promotemoretoa
computerinterfacethatappearshuman.Indeed,thefalsesuggestionofperson’s
presencecausesmeasurablephysiologicalchanges,namely,astateof
“psychologicalarousal”thatdoesnotoccurwhenoneisalone[Calo2010,835‐
42].
Thepropensitytoreacttorobotsandothersocialtechnologyasthough
theywereactuallyhumanhasrepercussionsforprivacyandthevaluesit
protects[Id.,842‐49].Oneofprivacy’scentralrolesinsocietyistohelpcreate
andsafeguardmomentswhenpeoplecanbealone.AsAlanWestinfamously
wroteinhis1970treatiseonprivacy,peoplerequire“moments‘offstage’when
theindividualcanbehimself.”Privacyprovides“arespitefromtheemotional
stimulationofdailylife”thatthepresenceofothersinevitablyengenders
[Westin1967,35].Theabsenceofopportunitiesforsolitudewould,many
believe,causenotonlydiscomfortandconformity,butalsooutright
psychologicalharm.
Socialtechnology,meanwhile,isbeginningtoappearinmore—andmore
private—places.ResearchersatbothMITandStanfordUniversityareworkingon
Page 21
roboticcompanionsinvehicles,whereAmericansspendasignificantamountof
theirtime.Robotswanderhospitalsandoffices.Theyare,asdescribed,showing
upinthehomewithincreasingfrequency.ThegovernmentofSouthKoreahas
anofficialgoalofonerobotperhouseholdby2015.(ThetitleofBillGates’sop
edreferencedattheoutsetofthischapter?“ARobotInEveryHome.”)The
introductionofmachinesthatourbrainsunderstandaspeopleintohistorically
privatespacesmayreducealreadydwindlingopportunitiesforsolitude.Wemay
withdrawfromtheactualwhirlwindofdailylifeonlytoreenteritsfunctional
equivalentinthecar,office,orhome.x
Robotinterrogators.Forreasonsalreadylisted,robotscouldbeas
effectiveashumansinelicitingconfidencesorinformation.xiDuetoour
propensitytoreceivethemaspeople,socialrobots—or,moreaccurately,their
designersandoperators—canemployflattery,shame,fear,orothertechniques
commonlyusedinpersuasion[Fogg2003].Butunlikehumans,robotsarenot
themselvessusceptibletothesetechniques.Moreover,robotshavecertainbuilt‐
inadvantagesoverhumanpersuaders.Theycanexhibitperfectrecall,for
instance,and,assuminganongoingenergysource,havenoneedfor
interruptionsorbreaks.Peopletendtoplacegreatertrustincomputers,atleast,
assourcesofinformation[Fogg2003,213].Androboticexpressioncanbe
Page 22
perfectlyfine‐tunedtoconveyaparticularsentimentataparticulartime,which
iswhytheyareusefulintreatingcertainpopulationssuchasautisticchildren.
Thegovernmentandindustrycouldaccordinglyusesocialrobotsto
extractinformationwithgreatefficiency.SettingasidethespecterofroboticCIA
interrogators,imaginethepossibilitiesofsocialrobotsforconsumermarketing.
IanKerrhasexploredtheuseofonline“bots”orlow‐levelartificialintelligence
programstogatherinformationaboutconsumersontheInternet[Kerr2004].As
oneexample,Kerrpointstothetext‐basedvirtualrepresentativeELLEgirlBuddy,
developedbyActiveBuddy,Inc.topromoteElleGirlmagazineanditsadvertisers.
Thissoftwareinteractedwiththousandsofteensviainstantmessengerbeforeit
waseventuallyretired.ELLEgirlBuddymimickedteenlingoandsoughttofostera
relationshipwithitsinterlocutors,allthewhilecollectinginformationfor
marketinguse(Id.).Socialrobots—deployedinstores,offices,andelsewhere—
couldbeusedashighlyefficientgatherersofconsumerinformationand,
eventually,tunedtodelivertheperfectmarketingpitch.
Settingprivacy.Manycontemporaryprivacyadvocatesworrythata
“smart”energygridconnectedtohouseholddevices,thoughprobablybetterfor
theenvironment,willpermitguessesabouttheinteriorlifeofahousehold.
Indeed,onedaysoonitmaybepossibletodetermineanarrayofhabits—when
apersongetshome,whetherandhowlongtheyplayvideogames,whetherthey
Page 23
havecompany—merelybylookingatanenergymeter.Thisimportant,looming
problemechoestheissuesdiscussedaboveinreferencetoaccesstothe
historicallyprivatehome.
Theprivacyissuesofsmartgridsareinawaycabined,however,bythe
sheerbanalityofourinteractionwithmosthouseholddevices.Notwithstanding
SupremeCourtJusticeAntonScalia’sreferencetohowathermalimagining
devicemightrevealthe“ladyinhersauna”[Kyllov.UnitedStates],the
temperaturetowhichwesetthethermostatorhowlongweareintheshower
doesnotsayallthatmuchaboutus.Eventhebooksweborrowfromthelibrary
orthevideoswerent(eachprotected,incidentally,underprivacylaw)permitat
mostinferencesaboutourpersonalityandmentalstate.
Ourinteractionswithsocialrobotscouldbealtogetherdifferent.
Consumerswillultimatelybeabletoprogramrobotsnotonlytooperateata
particulartimeoraccomplishspecifictask,buttoadoptoractoutanearly
infinitevarietyofpersonalitiesandscenarioswithindependentsocialmeaningto
theownerandthecommunity.Ifthehistoryofothertechnologiesisanyguide,
manyoftheseapplicationswillbecontroversial.Alreadypeopleappeartorely
onrobotswithprogrammablepersonalitiesforcompanionshipandgratification.
Additionaluseswillsimplybeidiosyncratic,odd,orotherwiseprivate.
Page 24
Ininteractingwithprogrammablesocialrobots,westandtosurfaceour
mostintimatepsychologicalattributes.AsDavidLevypredicts,“robotswill
transformhumannotionsofloveandsexuality,”inpartbypermittinghumans
bettertoexplorethemselves[Levy2007,22].Andevenaswemanifestthese
interiorreflectionsofoursubconscious,atechnologywillberecordingthem.
Whetherthroughrobotsensoryequipment,orembeddedasanexpressionof
code,thewayweusehuman‐likerobotswillbefixedinafile.Suddenlyour
appliancesettingswillnotonlymatter,theywillrevealinformationaboutusthat
apsychotherapistmightenvy.Thisarguablynovelcategoryofhighlypersonal
informationcould,asanyotherinformation,bestolen,sold,orsubpoenaed.xii
Thechallengeofsocialmeaning.Again,wecanimaginewaystomitigate
theseharms.Butthelawisinabasicsenseill‐equippedtodealwiththerobots’
socialdimension.Thisissobecausenoticeandconsenttendtodefeatprivacy
claimsandbecauseharmisdifficulttomeasureinprivacycases.Considerthe
exampleofarobotinthehomethatinterruptssolitude.Theharmis
subconscious,variable,anddifficulttomeasure,whichislikelytogiveanycourt
orregulatorpauseinpermittingrecovery.Insofarasconsentdefeatsmany
privacyclaims,therobot’spresenceinthehomeislikelytobeinvited,even
purchased.Similarly,itisdifficultenoughtomeasurewhatcommercialactivities
risetothelevelofdeceptionorunfairness,withouthavingtoparsehuman
Page 25
reactionstocomputersalespeople.Ratherthanrelyingonlegalortechnological
fixes,theprivacychallengesofsocialrobotswillrequireandindepth
examinationofhuman‐robotinteractionwithinmultipledisciplinesovermany
years.
Conclusion
AccordingtoapopularquotebysciencefictionwriterWilliamGibson,“The
futureisalreadyhere.Itjusthasn’tbeenevenlydistributedyet.”Gibson’sinsight
certainlyappearstodescriberobotics.Onedaysoonrobotswillbeapartofthe
mainstream,profoundlyaffectingoursociety.Theprecedingchapterhas
attemptedtointroduceavarietyofwaysinwhichrobotsmayimplicatetheset
ofsocietalvalueslooselygroupedunderthetermprivacy.Thefirsttwo
categoriesofimpact—surveillanceandaccess—admitofrelativelywell‐
understoodethical,technological,andlegalresponses.Thethirdcategory,
however,tiedtosocialmeaning,presentsanextremelydifficultsetof
challenges.Theharmsatissuearehardtoidentify,measure,andresist.Theyare
inmanyinstancesinvited.Andneitherlawnortechnologyhasobvioustoolsto
combatthem.Ourbasicrecourseascreatorsandconsumersofsocialrobotsis
toproceedverycarefully.
Page 26
Bibliography
Calo,M.Ryan,2010.“PeopleCanBeSoFake:ANewDimensiontoPrivacyand
TechnologyScholarship,”PennStateLawReview114:809.
Denningetal.,Tamara,2009.“ASpotlightonSecurityandPrivacyRiskswith
FutureHouseholdRobots:AttacksandLessons,”Proceedingsofthe11th
InternationalConferenceonUbiquitousComputing(September30–October3).
Fogg,B.J.,2003.PersuasiveTechnologies:UsingComputerstoChangeWhatWe
ThinkandDo.SanFrancisco,Cal.:MorganKauffmanPublishers.
Freiwald,Susan,2007.“FirstPrinciplesofCommunicationsPrivacy,”Stanford
TechnologyLawReview3:1.
Gates,Bill,2007.“Arobotineveryhome,”ScientificAmerican(January).
Kerr,Ian,2004.“Bots,Babes,andCalifornicationofCommerce,”Universityof
OttawaLawandTechnologyJournal1:285.
Page 27
Levy,David,2008.Love+SexwithRobots.NewYork,N.Y.:HarperPerennial.
Lewis,Paul,2010.“CCTVinthesky:policeplantousemilitary‐stylespydrones,”
TheGuardian(January).
Reeves,ByronandNass,Cliff,1996.TheMediaEquation.Cambridge,Eng.:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Shachtman,Noah,2009.“Petagon’sCyborgBeetleSpiesTakeOff,”Wired.com
(January).
Schwartz,Paul,2000.“InternetPrivacyandtheState,”ConnecticutLawReview
32:815.
Sharkey,Noel,2008.“2084:Bigrobotiswatchingyou.”
Singer,PeterWarren,2009.WiredforWar.NewYork,N.Y.:ThePenguinPress.
Solove,Daniel,2004.TheDigitalPerson:TechnologyandPrivacyintheDigital
Age.NewYork,N.Y.:NewYorkUniversityPress.
Page 28
Solove,Daniel,2007.“TheFirstAmendmentasCriminalProcedure,”NewYork
UniversityLawReview82:112.
Veruggio,GianmarcoandOperto,Fiorella.2008.“Roboethics:SocialandEthical
ImplicationsofRobotics,”InSpringerHandbookofRobotics,eds.BrunoSiciliano
andOussamaKhatib,1499‐1524.Berlin,Ger.:Springer‐Verlag.
Weizenbaum,Joseph,1976.ComputersPowerandHumanReason:From
JudgmenttoCalculation.SanFrancisco,Cal.:W.H.FreemanandCompany.
AllenWestin.1967.PrivacyandFreedom.NewYork,N.Y.:Antheneum.
Zittrain,Jonathan,2008.TheFutureoftheInternet:AndHowtoStopIt.New
Haven,Con.:YaleUniversityPress.
Page 29
Endnotes
iiForthepurposesofthischapter,arobotisastand‐alonemachinewiththeabilitytosense,process,andinteractphysicallywiththeworld.Thetermhomeorpersonalrobotisusedtodistinguishmachinesconsumersmightbuyandfrommilitary,lawenforcement,orassemblyrobots.Thisleavesoutasmalluniverseofrobotictechnologies—“smart”homes,embeddedmedicaldevices,prosthetics—thatalsohaveprivacyimplicationsnotfullydevelopedhere.Artificialintelligenceinparticular,whetherornotitis“embodied”inarobot,hasdeeprepercussionsforprivacy,forinstance,inthatitunderpinsdatamining. iiiThisisnottominimizetheprivacyrisksassociatedwithsmartenergygridsorthe“Internetofthings,”i.e.,embeddedcomputingtechnologyintoeverydayspacesandproducts.Informationstemmingfromsuchtechnologycanbeleveraged,particularlyintheaggregate,inwaysthatnegativelyimpactprivacy. ivOneofthechiefbenefitsofInternetcommerceistheabilitytotargetmessagesandperformdetailedanalyticsonadvertisingandwebsiteuse.Asseveralrecentreportshavecatalogued,outdooradvertisersarefindingwaystotrackcustomersinrealspace.Billboardsrecordimagesofpasserby,forinstance,andchangeonthebasisoftheradiostationstowhichpassingcarsaretuned.Roboticswillonlyacceleratethistrendbyfurthermediatingconsumertransactionsoffline. vSurveillancemaynotautomaticallybelawfulmerelybecausethetoolswereusedareavailabletothepublic.InUnitedStatesv.Taborda,forinstance,theSecondCircuitsuppressedevidencesecuredonthebasisofusingatelescopetopeerintoahomeonthetheorythat“theinferenceofintendedprivacyathomeis[not]rebuttedbyafailuretoobstructtelescopicviewingbyclosingthecurtains.”ButfollowingtheSupremeCourtopinioninKyllo,generalavailabilityappearstocreateapresumptionthatthetoolcanbeusedwithoutawarrant. viThisishowatleasttworobots—SRIInternational’sCentibotsandIntel’sHomeExploringRoboticButler—alreadyfunction. viiAnearlierstudyfoundsimilarvulnerabilitiesinoneversionofiRobot’spopularRoomba,whichmovesslowly,cannotgraspobjects,andisnotequippedwithacamera. viiiAsdiscussedabove,terroristinsurgentshavealsohackedintomilitarydrones.
Page 30
ixThestandardexplanationisthatweevolvedatatimewhencooperationwithotherhumansconferredevolutionaryadvantagesand,becauseoftheabsenceofmedia,whatappearedtobehumanactuallywas.Therearereasonstobeskepticalofexplanationsstemmingfromevolutionarypsychology—namely,itcanbeusedtoprove,multipleconflictingphenomenon.Whatevertheexplanation,however,theevidencethatwedoreactinthiswayisquiteextensive. xCommunicationsscholarSamLehman‐Wilzigcriticizesthisideaonthebasisthat,ifwetreatrobotslikeotherpeople,wecansimplyshutthedooronthemaswedowithoneanotherinordertogainsolitude.Peoplemaynotconsciouslyrealizethatrobotshavethesameimpactonasanotherperson,however,androbotsandothersocialmachinesandinterfacescananddogomanyplaces—cars,computers,etc.—thathumanscannot.
Itcouldalsobearguedthatwewillgetusedtorobotsinourmidst,therebydefeatingthemechanismthatinterruptssolitude.Whatevidencethereisonthematterpointsintheotherdirection.Forinstance,astudyoftheeffectofeyesonpayingforgoodsonthehonorsystemsawnodiminishmentinbehaviorovermanyweeks.Norisitclearthatpeoplewillcometotrustrobotsinthesamewaytheymightintimates,relatives,orservants—assumingweevenalreadydo. xiOfcourse,artificialintelligenceisnotatthepointwhereamachinecanroutinelytrickapersonintobelieveitishuman—theso‐calledTuringTest.Themerebeliefthattherobotishumanisnotnecessaryinordertoleveragethepsychologicalprinciplesofinterrogationandotherformsofpersuasion. xiiThisissomewhattruealreadywithrespecttovirtualworldsandopen‐endedgames.Human‐robotinteractionsstandtoamplifythedangerinseveralways.Thereislikelytobeagreaterinvestmentandstigmaattachedtophysicalthanvirtualbehavior,forinstance(orsoonehopes,giventhecontentofmanyvideogames).Ultimatelyouruseofrobotsmayrevealinformationwedonotevenwanttoknowaboutourselves,muchlessriskothersdiscovering.