Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Data Protection on the Move pp 387–410Cite as

The Impact of Domestic Robots on Privacy and Data Protection, and the Troubles with Legal Regulation by Design

  • Chapter

Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (ISDP,volume 24)

Abstract

The paper examines a particular class of robotic applications, i.e. “domestic robots,” in order to stress that such robots will likely affect current legal frameworks of privacy and data protection. Since most of these machines act, new responsibilities of humans for the behaviour of others should be expected in the legal field. More particularly, focus is on the protection of people’s “opaqueness” and the transparency with which domestic robots should collect, process, and make use of personal data. Whilst the aim of the law to govern the process of technological innovation concerns here the regulation of producers and designers of robots through specific sets of norms, or the regulation of users behaviour through the design of their robots, three issues are fated to remain open. They concern: (i) a new expectation of privacy; (ii) the realignment of the traditional distinction between data processors and data controllers; and, (iii) a novel set of challenges to the principle of privacy by design. Although the claim and goal of lawmakers will probably revolve around the protection of individuals against every harm, e.g. psychological problems related to the interaction with domestic robots and the processing of third parties’ information, the intent to embed normative constraints into the internal control architecture of such artificial agents entails a major risk. If there is no need to humanize our robotic applications, we should not robotize human life either.

Keywords

  • Agency
  • Data protection
  • Design
  • Human-Robot interaction
  • Robotics
  • Privacy

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the press release at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_it.htm.

Bibliography

  • Allen, Anita. 1988. Uneasy access: privacy for women in a free society. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Colin, Gary Varner, and Jason Zinser. 2000. Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12: 251–261.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Tom, and Robin Widdison. 1996. Can computers make contracts? Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 9(1): 26–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, Francisco, Paulo Novais, José Machado, and José Neves. 2007. Contracting agents: Legal personality and representation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15: 357–373.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barfield, Woodrow. 2005. Issues of law for software agents within virtual environments. Presence 14(6): 741–748.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bekey, George A. 2005. Autonomous Robots: From Biological Inspiration to Implementation and Control. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellia, Anthony J. 2001. Contracting with electronic agents. Emory Law Journal 50: 1047–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, Anu. 2012. The brussels effect. Northwestern University Law Review 107(1): 1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breazeal, Cynthia. 2002. Designing sociable robots. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian, Ann. 2010. Privacy by design: The definitive workshop. Identity in the Information Society 3(2): 247–251.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, Samir, and Laurence F. White. 2011. A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Diana (ed.). 2015. Human-robot interactions: Principles, technologies and challenges. New York: Nova.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Jim. (2011). The (common) laws of man over (civilian) vehicles unmanned. Journal of Law, Information and Science 21(2). 10.5778/JLIS.2011.21.Davis.1.

  • Dautenhahn, Kerstin. 2007. Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362(1480): 679–704.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • EU Robotics. 2013. Robotics 2020 Strategic Research Agenda for Robotics in Europe, draft 0v42, 11 Oct 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano. 2008. The method of levels of abstraction. Minds and Machines 18(3): 303–329.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano. 2006. Four challenges for a theory of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology 8(3): 109–119.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano, and Jeff Sanders. 2004. On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines 14(3): 349–379.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, Stan, and Art Graesser. 1997. Is it an agent, or just a program? A Taxonomy for autonomous agents. In Intelligent Agents III, Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, ed. J.P. Müller, M.J. Wooldridge, and R. Nicholas, 21–35. Berlin: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gavison, Ruth. 1980. Privacy and the limits of the law. Yale Law Journal 89: 421–471.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, Mireille. 2011. Legal protection by design: Objections and refutations. Legisprudence 5(2): 223–248.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, Mireille, and Bert-Jaap Koops. 2010. The challenges of ambient law and legal protection in the profiling era. Modern Law Review 73(3): 428–460.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Karnow, Curtis E.A. 1996. Liability for distributed artificial intelligence. Berkeley Technology and Law Journal 11: 147–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, Ian. 2001. Ensuring the success of contract formation in agent-mediated electronic commerce. Electronic Commerce Research Journal 1: 183–202.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, Orin. 2004. The fourth amendment and new technologies: Constitutional myths and the case for caution. Michigan Law Review 102: 801–888.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Koops, Bert-Jaap. 2006 Should ICT Regulation be technology-neutral? In Starting Points for ICT Regulation: Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-liners, ed. B-J. Koops et al., 77–108, The Hague: TMC Asser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops, Bert-Jaap, and Ronald Leenes. 2014. Privacy regulation cannot be hardcoded: A critical comment on the “Privacy by Design” Provision in data protection law. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 28: 159–171.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, Ronald, and Federica Lucivero. 2014. Laws on robots, laws by robots, laws in robots: Regulating robot behaviour by design. Law, Innovation and Technology 6(2): 193–220.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lerouge, Jean-François. 2000. The Use of electronic agents questioned under contractual law: Suggested solutions on a European and American level. The John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 18: 403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, Lawrence. 2004. Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, David. 2007. Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Martin, Ester and Angel P. del Pobil. 2015. UJI HRI-BD: A new human-robot interaction benchmark dataset. In Human-Robot Interactions: Principles, Technologies and Challenges, ed. D. Coleman, 57–73, New York: Nova.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, David. 2008. Guilty robots, happy dogs: The question of alien minds. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, Helen. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 79(1): 119–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo. 2010. Robotrust and legal responsibility. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 23(3–4): 367–379.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo. 2011. Designing data protection safeguards ethically. Information 2(2): 247–265.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo (2012a) On the principle of privacy by design and its limits: Technology, ethics, and the rule of law. In European Data Protection: In Good Health? ed. Serge Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes, Paul De Hert and Yves Poullet, 331–346. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo. 2012b. Cracking down on autonomy: Three challenges to design in IT law. Ethics and Information Technology 14(4): 319–328.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo. 2013a. Robots in the cloud with privacy: A New threat to data protection? Computer Law & Security Review 29(5): 501–508.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo. 2013b. The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts. Dordrecht: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo. 2013c. Online security and the protection of civil rights: A legal overview. Philosophy & Technology 26(4): 381–395.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo. 2015. Teaching “Consumer Robots” respect for informational privacy: A legal stance on HRI. In Human-Robot Interactions. Principles, Technologies and Challenges, ed. D. Coleman, 35–55. New York: Nova.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, Ugo, and Eleonora Bassi. 2013. Open data protection: Challenges, perspectives, and tools for the reuse of PSI. In Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2013, ed. M. Hildebrand, K. O’Hara, and M. Waidner, 179–189. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, Chis. 2012. Making laws for cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RoboLaw. 2014. Guidelines on regulating robotics. EU project on regulating emerging robotic technologies in Europe: Robotics facing law and ethics, 22 Sept.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, Giovanni. 2009. Cognitive automata and the law: Electronic contracting and the intentionality of software agents. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17(4): 253–290.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, Noel. 2011. Automated warfare: Lessons learned from the drones. Journal of Law, Information and Science 21(2). 10.5778/JLIS.2011.21.Sharkey.1.

  • Singer, Peter. 2009. Wired for war: The Robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solum, Lawrence B. 1992. Legal personhood for artificial intelligence. North Carolina Law Review 70: 1231–1287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullins, John P. 2011. Introduction: Open questions in roboethics. Philosophy and Technology 24(3): 233–238.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • UN World Robotics. 2005. Statistics, Market Analysis, Forecasts, Case Studies and Profitability of Robot Investment, edited by the UN Economic Commission for Europe and co-authored by the International Federation of Robotics. Geneva,Switzerland: UN Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veruggio, Gianmarco. 2006. Euron roboethics roadmap. In Proceedings Euron Roboethics Atelier, 27th Feb–3rd Mar, Genoa, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, Samuel, and Louis Brandeis. 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 14: 193–220.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzenboeck, Emily Mary. 2001. Electronic agents and the formation of contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 9(3): 204–234.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Westin, Alan F. 1967. Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, Michael J., and Nicholas R. Jennings. 1995. Agent theories, architectures, and languages: a survey. In Intelligent Agents, ed. M. Wooldridge, and N.R. Jennings, 1–22. Berlin: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zittrain, Jonathan. 2007. Perfect enforcement on tomorrow’s internet. In Regulating Technologies: Legal Futures, Regulatory Frames and Technological Fixes, ed. Roger Brownsword, and Karen Yeung, 125–156. London: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Corso Regio Parco N. 8, Turin, 10135, Italy

    Ugo Pagallo

  2. Law School, University of Torino, Lungo Dora Siena 100 A, 10153, Torino, Italy

    Ugo Pagallo

Authors
  1. Ugo Pagallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugo Pagallo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS), Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Serge Gutwirth

  2. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ronald Leenes

  3. Law, Science, Technology and Society, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Paul De Hert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pagallo, U. (2016). The Impact of Domestic Robots on Privacy and Data Protection, and the Troubles with Legal Regulation by Design. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P. (eds) Data Protection on the Move. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7376-8_14

Download citation

search

Navigation