[projectvrm] Robots, drones & privacy

["T.Rob" < >]

The link is to a paper by A. Michael Froomkin and Zak Colangelo out of
University of Miami - School of Law.  The paper is *not* behind a paywall
(!!) and is 80 pages.  I'm pasting in the entire abstract.  Here's the
pull-quote:

"We argue that the scope of permissible self-help in defending one's privacy
should be quite broad. There is exigency in that resort to legally
administered remedies would be impracticable; and worse, the harm caused by
a drone that escapes with intrusive recordings can be substantial and hard
to remedy after the fact."

Same might be said about ad blockers.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2504325

Abstract:     
Robots can pose-or can appear to pose-a threat to life, property, and
privacy. May a landowner legally shoot down a trespassing drone? Can she
hold a trespassing autonomous car as security against damage done or further
torts? Is the fear that a drone may be operated by a paparazzo or a peeping
Tom sufficient grounds to disable or interfere with it? How hard may you
shove if the office robot rolls over your foot? This paper addresses all
those issues and one more: what rules and standards we could put into place
to make the resolution of those questions easier and fairer to all
concerned.

The default common-law legal rules governing each of these perceived threats
are somewhat different, although reasonableness always plays an important
role in defining legal rights and options. In certain cases - drone
overflights, autonomous cars, national, state, and even local regulation -
may trump the common law. Because it is in most cases obvious that humans
can use force to protect themselves against actual physical attack, the
paper concentrates on the more interesting cases of (1) robot (and
especially drone) trespass and (2) responses to perceived threats other than
physical attack by robots notably the risk that the robot (or drone) may be
spying - perceptions which may not always be justified, but which sometimes
may nonetheless be considered reasonable in law.

We argue that the scope of permissible self-help in defending one's privacy
should be quite broad. There is exigency in that resort to legally
administered remedies would be impracticable; and worse, the harm caused by
a drone that escapes with intrusive recordings can be substantial and hard
to remedy after the fact. Further, it is common for new technology to be
seen as risky and dangerous, and until proven otherwise drones are no
exception. At least initially, violent self-help will seem, and often may
be, reasonable even when the privacy threat is not great - or even extant.
We therefore suggest measures to reduce uncertainties about robots, ranging
from forbidding weaponized robots to requiring lights, and other markings
that would announce a robot's capabilities, and RFID chips and serial
numbers that would uniquely identify the robot's owner.

The paper concludes with a brief examination of what if anything our survey
of a person's right to defend against robots might tell us about the current
state of robot rights against people.


Kind regards,
-- T.Rob

T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
IoPT Consulting, LLC
+1 704-443-TROB (8762) Voice/Text
https://ioptconsulting.com
https://twitter.com/tdotrob