Showing results for: emerging-technology
White Papers
Research Papers
Videos
AI Now: Social and Political Questions for Artificial Intelligence | Kate Crawford
On March 6th, Kate Crawford gave the Tech Policy Lab’s Spring Distinguished Lecture on “AI Now: Social and Political Questions for Artificial Intelligence.” The impact of early AI systems is already being felt, bringing with it challenges and opportunities, and laying the foundation on which future advances in AI will be integrated into social and political domains. The potential wide-ranging impact makes it necessary to look carefully at the ways in which these technologies are being applied now, whom they’re benefiting, and how they’re structuring our social, economic, and interpersonal lives. Kate Crawford is the co-founder (with Meredith Whittaker) of the AI Now Institute, a New York-based research center working across disciplines to understand the social and economic implications of artificial intelligence. She is a principal researcher at Microsoft Research New York City, a visiting professor at MIT’s Center for Civic Media, and a senior fellow at NYU’s Information Law Institute. Her research addresses the social implications of large scale data, machine learning and AI. Recent publications address the topics of data discrimination, social impacts of artificial intelligence, predictive analytics and due process, ethical review for data science, and algorithmic accountability.
CHI 2017: Toys That Listen
The Lab’s research paper Toys That Listen: A Study of Parents, Children, and Internet-Connected Toys was presented at CHI ’17: ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems during the Emerging Privacy session.
My Politics as a Technologist | Terry Winograd and Alan Borning
On November 30, 2016 the Tech Policy Lab organized a discussion at the intersection of personal politics and technical expertise with Terry Winograd and Alan Borning. Professor Terry Winograd is a leader in human-computer interaction and the design of technologies for development. Professor Winograd advised the creators of Google and was a founding member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Professor Emeritus Alan Borning is an expert in programming languages and human computer interaction. Professor Borning pioneered information systems for civic engagement, among them OneBusAway, a set of digital tools that provide real-time transit information, UrbanSim (think SimCity for real) and the Living Voters Guide, an experiment in social media for an informed electorate.
Artificial Intelligence: Law and Policy
What is Administrative Law?
What is a Robot?
In our research, we found 3 broad approaches that scholars use to define robots. These are (1) as artificial humans, (2) programmable machines, and (3) machines that can sense, think, and act on the world. None of these approaches offers a definition that works for all of the ways we already use the word. But they're a start.
What is Machine Learning?
What is an Algorithm?
What is Product Liability?
Product liability is the area of law in which consumers can bring claims gainst manufacturers and sellers for products that injure people. To sue for product liability, you only need to thos 1 of 3 things to hold the manufacturer liable.
What is a Bot?
Bots are automated software, designed by human programmers to do tasks on the web. Bots have been around since the beinning of the internet. As a recent New York Times article says, bots are getting smarter and easier to create. As bots become more convincing, users and researchers need to be careful what we are being convinced of.
Computer Security and the Internet of Things – Faculty Co-Director Tadayoshi Kohno presents at Usenix Enigma 2016
Tech Policy Lab Faculty Co-Director Kohno's talk explored case studies in the design and analysis of computer systems for several types of everyday objects, including wireless medical devices, children's toys, and automobiles. He discussed the discovery of security risks with leading examples of these technologies, the challenges to securing these technologies and the ecosystem leading to their vulnerabilities, and new directions for security and privacy. Including efforts (in collaboration with UC San Diego) to compromise the computers in an automobile from a thousand miles away, and the implications and consequences of this and other works. He also outlined directions for mitigating computer security and privacy risks, including both technical directions and education.
Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection 2016: Panel on Toys That Listen
This panel on Toys That Listen, organized by the Tech Policy Lab, brought together an interdisciplinary group of experts to discuss best practices for privacy, consumer protection, and user control regarding connected devices in the home.
FTC Start With Security | Panel 3: The Business Case for Security
FTC Start With Security | Avoiding Catastrophe: An Introduction to OWASP Proactive Controls
FTC Start with Security | Panel 1: Building a Security Culture
FTC Start With Security | Panel 4: Securing the Internet of Things
Connected devices present new security challenges and expanded attack surfaces. How can startups secure their IoT products and services in a rapidly developing ecosystem? This panel will address how IoT startups can identify and manage critical risks in their businesses and plan for the unique challenges they face.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 2: “Robot Passports”
Author: Anupam Chander; Discussant: Ann Bartow; Paper: http://bit.ly/1QBX2fp. Can international trade law, which after all seeks to liberalize trade in both goods and services, help stave off attempts to erect border barriers to this new type of trade? The smart objects of the 21st century consist of both goods and information services, and thus are subject to multiple means of government protectionism, but also trade liberalization. This paper is the first effort to locate and analyze the Internet of Things and modern robotics within the international trade framework.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 8: “Operator Signatures for Teleoperated Robots”
Authors: Tamara Bonaci, Aaron Alva, Jeffrey Herron, Ryan Calo, Howard Chizeck; Discussant: Margot Kaminski; Paper: http://bit.ly/1GBw1Wz. This paper discusses legal liability and evidentiary issues that operator signatures could occasion or help to resolve. We first provide a background of teleoperated robotic systems, and introduce the concept of operator signatures. We then discuss some cyber-security risks that may arise during teleoperated procedures, and describe the three main task operator signatures seek to address—identification, authentication, and real-time monitoring. Third, we discuss legal issues that arise for each of these tasks. We discuss what legal problems operator signatures help mitigate. We then focus on liability concerns that may arise when operator signatures are used as a part of a real-time monitoring and alert tool. We consider the various scenarios where actions are conducted on the basis of an operator signature alert. Finally, we provide preliminary guidance on how to balance the need to mitigate cyber-security risks with the desire to enable adoption of teleoperation.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 7: “The Presentation of the Machine in Everyday Life”
Authors: Karen Levy & Tim Hwang; Discussant: Evan Selinger; Paper: http://bit.ly/1bMxso7. As policy concerns around intelligent and autonomous systems come to focus increasingly on transparency and usability, the time is ripe for an inquiry into the theater of autonomous systems. When do (and when should) law and policy explicitly regulate the optics of autonomous systems (for instance, requiring electric vehicle engines to “rev” audibly for safety reasons) as opposed to their actual capabilities? What are the benefits and dangers of doing so? What economic and social pressures compel a focus on system theater, and what are the ethical and policy implications of such a focus?
WeRobot 2015 Panel 1: “Who’s Johnny? (Anthropomorphizing Robots)”
Author: Kate Darling; Discussant: Ken Goldberg; Paper: http://bit.ly/1bxvbfR. As we increasingly create spaces where robotic technology interacts with humans, our tendency to project lifelike qualities onto robots raises questions around use and policy. Based on a human-robot-interaction experiment conducted in our lab, this paper explores the effects of anthropomorphic framing in the introduction of robotic technology. It discusses concerns about anthropomorphism in certain contexts, but argues that there are also cases where encouraging anthropomorphism is desirable. Because people respond to framing, framing could serve as a tool to separate these cases.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 6: “Unfair and Deceptive Robots”
Author: Woodrow Hartzog; Discussant: Ryan Calo; Paper: http://bit.ly/1KoSy7E. What should consumer protection rules for robots look like? The FTC’s grant of authority and existing jurisprudence make it the preferable regulatory agency for protecting consumers who buy and interact with robots. The FTC has proven to be a capable regulator of communications, organizational procedures, and design, which are the three crucial concepts for safe consumer robots. Additionally, the structure and history of the FTC shows that the agency is capable of fostering new technologies as it did with the Internet. The agency defers to industry standards, avoids dramatic regulatory lurches, and cooperates with other agencies. Consumer robotics is an expansive field with great potential. A light but steady response by the FTC will allow the consumer robotics industry to thrive while preserving consumer trust and keeping consumers safe from harm.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 9: “Robot Economics”
WeRobot 2015 Panel 10: “Personal Responsibility and Neuroprosthetics”
Authors: Patrick Moore, Timothy Brown, Jeffrey Herron, Margaret Thompson, Tamara Bonaci, Sara Goering, Howard Chizeck; Discussant: Meg Leta Jones; Paper: http://bit.ly/1J4Mtfp. This paper investigates whether giving users volitional control over therapeutic brain implants is ethically and legally permissible. We believe that it is not only permissible—it is in fact advantageous when compared to the alternative of making such systems’ operation entirely automatic. From an ethical perspective, volitional control maintains the integrity of the self by allowing the user to view the technology as restoring, preserving, or enhancing one’s abilities without the fear of losing control over one’s own humanity. This preservation of self- integrity carries into the legal realm, where giving users control of the system keeps responsibility for the consequences of its use in human hands.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 3: “Robotics Governance”
Panelists: Peter Asaro, Jason Millar, Kristen Thomasen, & David Post. Asaro, “Regulating Robots: A Multi-Scale Approach to Developing Robot Policy and Technology” http://bit.ly/1H1fZE8; Millar, “Sketching an Ethics Evaluation Tool for Robot Design and Governance” http://bit.ly/1Fsqro4; Thomasen, “Driving Lessons: Learning from the History of Automobile Regulation to Legislate Better Drones” http://bit.ly/1DQQrnx.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 5: “Law and Ethics of Telepresence Robots”
Authors: J. Nathan Matias, Chelsea Barabas, Chris Bavitz, Cecillia Xie, & Jack Xu; Discussant: Laurel Riek; Paper: http://bit.ly/1KoSy7n. The deployment of telepresence robots creates enormous possibilities for enhanced long-distance interactions, educational opportunities, and bridging of social and cultural gaps. The use of telepresence robots raises some legal and ethical issues, however. This proposal outlines the development of a law and ethics toolkit directed to those who operate and allow others to operate telepresence robots, describing some of the potential legal ethical issues that arise from their use and offering proposed responses and means of addressing and allocating risk.
WeRobot 2015 Panel 4: “Regulating Healthcare Robots”
Authors: Drew Simshaw, Nicolas Terry, Kris Hauser, M.L. Cumming; Discussant: Cindy Jacobs; Paper: http://bit.ly/1Csn4s0. There are basic, pressing issues that need to be addressed in the nearer future in order to ensure that robots are able to maintain sustainable innovation with the confidence of providers, patients, consumers, and investors. We will only be able to maximize the potential of robots in healthcare through responsible design, deployment, and use, which must include taking into consideration potential issues that could, if overlooked, manifest themselves in ways that harm patients and consumers, diminish the trust of key stakeholders of robots in healthcare, and stifle long-term innovation by resulting in overly restrictive reactionary regulation. In this paper, we focus on the issues of patient and user safety, security, and privacy, and specifically the effect of medical device regulation and data protection laws on robots in healthcare.