Skip to main content
Book cover

International Conference on Inclusive Robotics for a better Society

INBOTS 2018: Inclusive Robotics for a Better Society pp 113–119Cite as

“Meet Me Halfway,” Said the Robot to the Regulation

Linking Ex-Ante Technology Impact Assessments to Legislative Ex-Post Evaluations via Shared Data Repositories for Robot Governance

Part of the Biosystems & Biorobotics book series (BIOSYSROB,volume 25)

Abstract

Current legislation may apply to new developments. Even so, these developments may raise new challenges that call into question the applicability of this legislation. This paper explains what happens at this moment for new robot technologies. We argue that there is no formal communication process between robot developers and regulators from which policies could learn. To bridge this gap, we propose a model that links technology impact assessments to legislative ex-post evaluations via shared data repositories.

Keywords

  • Iteration
  • Learning process
  • Robot technology
  • Governance
  • Robot impact assessment
  • Ex-post legislative evaluation
  • Shared data repository
  • Evidence-based policy

This research was financially supported by the Tech4People program of the University of Twente.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-24074-5_21
  • Chapter length: 7 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-24074-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

extracted from [9]

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cfr.: http://dustbot.org/ last accessed November 9, 2018.

  2. 2.

    Cfr.: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s3502/BILLS-115s3502is.pdf.

References

  1. Marchant, G.E., Allenby, B.R., Herkert, J.R. (eds.): The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem, vol. 7. Springer Science & Business Media, Netherlands (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fosch-Villaronga, E., Millard, C.: Cloud robotics law and regulation. Challenges in the governance of complex and dynamic cyber-physical ecosystems. In: SSRN (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Building a European Data Economy, COM(2017) 9 final, last modified, p. 4, 10 January 2017. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0009&from=EN

  4. Abbott, R.B., Bogenschneider, B.: Should Robots Pay Taxes? Tax Policy in the Age of Automation (March 13, 2017). Harvard Law & Policy Review, vol. 12 (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2932483

  5. Bryson, J.J., Diamantis, M.E., Grant, T.D.: Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artif. Intell. Law 25(3), 273–291 (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Koops, B.J., Di Carlo, A., Nocco, L., Casamassima, V., Stradella, E.: Robotic technologies and fundamental rights: robotics challenging the European constitutional framework. Int. J. Technoethics (IJT) 4(2), 15–35 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Vayena, E., Gasser, U.: Between openness and privacy in genomics. PLoS Med. 13(1), e1001937 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. De Hert, P.: Biometrics: legal issues and implications. Background Paper for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, DG JRC–Sevilla, European Commission (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fosch-Villaronga, E., Heldeweg, M.: “Regulation, I presume?” said the robot – Towards an iterative regulatory process for robot governance. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 34(6), 1258–1277 (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Salvini, P., Laschi, C., Dario, P.: Do service robots need a driving license? Industrial activities. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 18(2), 12–13 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferri, G., Manzi, A., Salvini, P., Mazzolai, B., Laschi, C., Dario, P.: DustCart, an autonomous robot for door-to-door garbage collection: from DustBot project to the experimentation in the small town of Peccioli. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 655–660, May 2011

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yang, G.Z., Bellingham, J., Dupont, P.E., Fischer, P., Floridi, L., Full, R., Jacobstein, N., Kumar, V., McNutt, M., Merrifield, R., Nelson, B.J.: The grand challenges of science robotics. Sci. Robot. 3(14), eaar7650 (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Calo, M.R.: Robots and Privacy. In: Lin, P., Abney, K., Bekey, G.A. (eds.) Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, p. 187 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Matthias, A.: The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf. Technol. 6(3), 175–183 (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Marchant, G.E., Wallach, W.: Coordinating technology governance. Issues Sci. Technol. 31(4), 43 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL))

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fosch Villaronga, E.: Creation of a care robot impact assessment. WASET Int. Sci. J. Soc. Behav. Educ. Econ. Manag. Eng. 9(6), 1817–1821 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brooks, H.: II technology assessment in retrospect. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1(4), 17–29 (1976)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Wright, D., De Hert, P.: Introduction to privacy impact assessment. In: Privacy Impact Assessment, pp. 3–32. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Wright, D., Raab, C.D.: Constructing a surveillance impact assessment. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 28(6), 613–626 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Barco-Martelo, A., Fosch-Villaronga, E.: Child robot interaction studies: from lessons learned to guidelines. In: Child-Robot Interaction Workshop at HRI 2017, 06–09 March, Vienna, Austria (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Owens, S., Rayner, T., Bina, O.: New agendas for appraisal: reflections 1681 on theory, practice, and research. Environ. Plan A 36(11), 1943–1959 (2004). 1682

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Fosch-Villaronga, E.: Artificial Intelligence, Healthcare and the Law: Regulating Automation in Personal Care. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group (2019), forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Governance and Technology Department, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    E. Fosch-Villaronga & M. A. Heldeweg

  2. eLaw Center for Law and Digital Technologies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    E. Fosch-Villaronga

Authors
  1. E. Fosch-Villaronga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. Heldeweg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Fosch-Villaronga .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cajal Institute, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid, Spain

    Prof. José L. Pons

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Fosch-Villaronga, E., Heldeweg, M.A. (2020). “Meet Me Halfway,” Said the Robot to the Regulation. In: Pons, J. (eds) Inclusive Robotics for a Better Society. INBOTS 2018. Biosystems & Biorobotics, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24074-5_21

Download citation