Household Robots Data Retention and Privacy Risks

Robots create all new methods of direct surveillance. When thinking of direct surveillance the common thoughts are of James Bond style spy devices. Hi-tech spy equipment designed to infiltrate and transmit would fit the idea of a surveillance robot, but in reality our privacy is likely to be invaded in much more mundane ways. Regular household items such as toys and household helper robots are constantly learning data about our daily lives. The level of retention and distribution of this data may constitute a threat to our personal privacy, and possibly unlawful search and seizure.

Issues surrounding robots and privacy are similar to the issues surrounding the internet. When browsing the internet we transmit data. Our IP address is sent to users we don’t know. Our browsing history is recorded. Retailers such as Amazon and EBay record our purchasing history. Direct conversations are recorded by email and instant message. Social media shares items from political opinions to photos and even our location in real time. The legal questions arise when addressing how this data is used, whether it is an item freely shared, or whether this data should be considered private.

An example of how seemingly innocuous data can be revealing can be illustrated by looking at Facebook. While it is commonly realized that liking certain pages can affect the ads seen on your personal Facebook page, a recent study has shown that this data can be used to create an entire personality profiles[1]. This data is voluntarily shared, and would not constitute an illegal search or invasion of privacy, but it is illustrative to show how seemingly little data can show a lot of information.

An example of a seemingly innocuous robot in the home can be found by looking at chore robots such as the Neato XV-11, a new generation of floor cleaning robots. The Neato is highly reviewed for its ability to scan the entire room before cleaning, which prevents it from bumping into walls and scratching furniture.[2] The question becomes what happens to this data after scanning. What could a thief do with the exact layout of every room in your home? Where is the data stored and does it transmit? Household robots record your daily habits, which can easily reveal more than you may intend. If these robots are willingly discarded by the owner, is it legal for another party to obtain this information? What about manufacturers or repairmen? Where is the line to the right to privacy drawn?

Finally there are robots that act like our stereotypical idea of robots. Household robots that have the ability to interact with us have become popularized in fiction such as Rosie on the Jetsons. Built for both children and adults, robots such as the Rovio have high data collection capabilities[3]. Data is recorded in audio and video, and the robot wirelessly communicates. These robots have the ability to provide direct surveillance about our daily lives and conversations. Will search warrants in the future have the right to search household robots? The increased use of robotics in the home will lead to increased issues concerning privacy and the law. As with the internet it may take time to establish a precedent for this data use, as situations will be constantly evolving.

---

[1] What do your Facebook likes say about you? John Skorick, My AKA March 20, 2013 http://myaka.com/news/privacy-news/what-do-your-facebook-likes-say-about-you-407357

[2] 5 Household Robots for Easier Living http://mashable.com/2012/09/27/household-robots/

[3] A Spotlight on Security and Privacy Risks with Future Household Robots: Attacks and Lessons

Tamara Denning, Cynthia Matuszek, Karl Koscher, Joshua R. Smith, and Tadayoshi Kohno

Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington

Legal Ramifications of Drone Prevention

“Upcoming legal issues in privacy protection as applied to drones and other robotic surveillance.”

            Changing laws and technology have joined together to make the proliferation of commercial and legal drones likely to increase in the near future. This increase draws new issues regarding privacy, trespass, and property boundaries. While legal issues of drones and property rights are debated in courts, many people will be likely to find DIY methods to preserve privacy from surveillance. Different methods of protection may raise new legal issues. Multiple anti-drone methods are discussed.

Simple Canopies and Awnings

Description

The most simple and efficient method to prevent a drone from seeing into personal property would be to erect some form of cover. Items such as canopies and awnings would prevent simple video surveillance. Evening curtains and blinds in house windows would act as the most efficient barrier to unwanted viewers. This method is unlikely to prevent infrared or heat seeking technology, but still allows a strong measure of privacy.

Legal Issues

There would seem to be very few issues on erecting a shelter on private property, especially as these shelters would likely be seen as temporary structures or simple decoration. Issues could arise if a structure is found to be obtrusive or invasive to a neighbor. Additional safety issues may be found when determining structure type. Lesser issues such as homeowners association and neighborhood guidelines may also come into play.

Jamming or signal interference

Description

A method of jamming signals either to or from a drone may be accomplished using many different forms of technology, including computers and simple apps in some cases. The point of a jamming signal is to disrupt the operation of the drone. Simple jamming may block the ability to take pictures or record sound. More advanced jamming could disable device operations such as navigation, and possibly lead to the device crashing.

Legal Issues

The blocking of a visual or sound signal to a private sector drone operator is the issue least likely to cause legal ramifications. Consequences would more likely be from neighbors who get signal overflow disrupting their devices or law enforcement officials seeking to monitor someone. Disruption of devices and navigation may have many more legal consequences. The destruction of a drone may be considered the destruction of property. Additionally, if a drone was taken down from the air, what might it hit? Is there a possibility of personal or property injury? Additional damages may incur additional legal penalties. The range of these jamming devices may also create consequences, such as how far the signal is allowed to project in a three dimensional space. Vertical projection of a signal may have an effect on FAA regulations. Wildlife may be affected by disruptive signals, such as birds migrating and navigation patterns.

Weapons

Description

A simple and efficient way to remove drones from an unwanted area would be to physically shoot them down from the sky. Methods of shooting may differ including shotguns, rifles, lasers, or even advanced security systems. The direct result of combatting drones with weapons would be the destruction of the drone.

Legal Issues

The legal issues are myriad when combatting drones with weapons. States differ on the right to defend one’s property from threats. Guns laws are well established according to people, but what about machines? As with jamming, issues of damage to people and property would be paramount. Public opinion would likely help to shape and form laws involving the discharge of private weapons in residential and commercial districts.

Building Codes and Architecture

Description

Houses and buildings are often built to very recognizable guidelines. City office buildings are commonly made with large portions of glass, believing that few can look in these windows from higher up and allowing employees to enjoy the views. Houses are often one story or two, frequently lacking a basement. Approved codes for building and construction are recognized by most county officials, while new plans often come under scrutiny.

Legal Issues

With the proliferation of drones, building codes may need to change. Open air fire escapes may be replaced by enclosed stairwells. Windows and ventilation may be replaced with closed air systems, cutting off access from outside. Would this change in ventilation spur changes in air circulating standards for building safety? Homes may also choose to create bigger and larger basements. Digging further into the ground can cause issues with stability, sinkholes, and the water table. Environmental issues such as these may have legal ramifications with the EPA and county officials involving public safety.

What is a robot? Discussion of legality, technology, and cultural superiority

Thesis

           What is exactly is a robot? Robots have been defined by the law, language, and popular culture. As we continue to evolve through technology and society, so does our definition of a robot. Many characteristics we acknowledge are based on our conceptions of humanity and servitude demonstrating thoughts both to the future and the past.

               

Evaluation

“A robot is a reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks.”

--The Robotic Industries Association (RIA) (RIA 2013)

                Legally a robot is defined as a reprogrammable manipulator of physical material. This definition would essentially include and machine that has the option to be programmed. Could a very fancy screwdriver be a robot? Or is this only applicable to a sophisticated lathe? This definition seems broader than the common visual of a robot as a metallic man. Perhaps this definition is non-inclusive and should be evaluated further.

“ a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized”

--Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Anonymous 2013)

                Robot defined by the language experts refers and compares to humans to complete this definition. The primary definition defines that a robot, “look like a human,” yet be devoid of emotion. This definition implies that to be a robot, a machine must possess human characteristics, but not all human characteristics. In this definition, neither the programmable lathe nor the screwdriver would be accepted as a robot. Perhaps this makes other machines a different class of machine. Would the specification of human features and lack of emotions create subclasses of machine-kind? Would robots then discriminate against other robots based on Android, Industrial, or Artificial Intelligence base programming?

                Human kind has long pondered the case of the robot. It may seem that we are caught between a legal definition such as the one by RIA, and a cultural definition as defined by Merriam Webster. Legal definitions seem to be defined by technical capabilities and current technology. Cultural definitions seem to be ever evolving however. The term ‘robot’ first came about in 1920 from a Czech playwright and is derived from terms referring to servitude and slavery (Intagliata 2011). The term has been captured by pop culture and evolved in many ways, while still referring back to the origins of performing tasks for humans.

“Let us remember that the automatic machine is the precise economic equivalent of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the economic consequences of slave labor.” 
― Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Chandler 2013)

                Are robots a fancy term for slave labor? Our working definitions so far include a programmable machine that does not feel emotion, yet resembles a human. When did this demand for lack of emotion get added to the definition of robot? Emotions are not specified in the original definition in 1920. As part of the human condition, have we tried to justify the invention of a slave race devoid of emotion to alleviate our guilt at the servitude of another? How much have we defined our understanding of robots based on the ability of robots to do jobs for us without feeling?

“Robots do not celebrate anything. Celebration is an expression of joy, which cannot be mechanized.” 
― Ravindra Shukla, A Maverick Heart Between Love and Life (Chandler 2013)

                By emphasizing an inability to feel joy, are we emphasizing the ability of a robot to feel pain? It is a common human temptation to anthropomorphize the objects around us. I doubt I am alone in believing my car has been throwing a temper tantrum. I feel very convinced my phone as it refuses to swear and regularly suggests the word ‘sinner’ as a noun replacement. We often create personalities for machines, yet are quick to note the distinctions between us and anything artificial. Is this distinction based upon fact or our desire to justify our feelings?

“Unfortunately robots capable of manufacturing robots do not exist. That would be the philosopher's stone, the squaring of the circle.” 

― Ernst Jünger, The Glass Bees (Chandler 2013)

                While initially true, the belief that robots cannot manufacture other robots may be a concept that will fade with time. The ever popular movies based on the Terminator series pose a world where machines can reproduce and become self-aware. If we define our definitions of robots based on their similarities and differences from ourselves, from the services these robots provide – then what happens when these robots evolve?

                While movies and science fiction may take examples to extremes, it seems that robots have already evolved from the dreams of a 1920’s playwright to working machines with both standard and legal definitions. Our definitions must keep evolving as does our technology. Our society too, must acknowledge the needs and fears behind this technological evolution. As robot becomes reality, so must we too look to the future and our lives as they evolve alongside machines?

         

References

Anonymous. (2013). “Robot,” Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Retrieved April 9, 2013

Chandler, O. (2013). “Quotes About Robots,” Good Reads, Inc. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/robots

Intagliata, C. (April 2011). “Science Diction: The Origin of the Word ‘Robot’”, Science Friday. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/22/2011/science-diction-the-origin-of-the-word-robot.html

Robotics Industries Association. (2013). “Robotics Law and Legal Definition,” US Legal, Inc. Retrieved April, 9 2013 from http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/robotics/