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

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

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

[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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.