IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2013 - 64

the rightful owners of the premises, is not far-fetched, especially if
security robots that allow Internet
updates to their command become
commonplace.

Design Features
Innovations in robotics are likely to
accelerate because of the increasing sophistication of the machines,
the decreasing cost of many of the
required components,5 the proliferation of new applications being
envisioned, and numerous other
driving forces. A key part of the
future of robotics is which design

redundancies and all kinds of
bells and whistles. But nonlinear, unexpected interactions
of even small failures can
defeat these safety systems.
If the system is also tightly
coupled, no intervention can
prevent a cascade of failures
that brings it down."
perrow's discussion is not framed
within the context of robotics;
he largely focuses on chemical
factories, nuclear power plants,
and other large-scale technologies [38]. But his observation still

Unfortunately there are
disincentives to considering the
potential harms of a technology
too deeply.
pathways are going to be actualized during this period of rapid
development and deployment. For
example, should robots have USB
ports? This would allow for convenient updates among other things,
but it also seems to be the vulnerability that was exploited in the
Stuxnet case [36].
In short, is it prudent to connect
robots to the Internet? Assuming
that this design is going to be pursued with exuberance, designers
may want to heed Charles perrow's
recommendation that technological
systems should be "decoupled." As
perrow states [37]:
"Everything is subject to failure - designs, procedures,
supplies and equipment, operators, and the environment.
The government and businesses know this and design
safety devices with multiple
5

According to Sharkey, Goodman, and ross [26],
"Building robots is 80 percent cheaper now than
it was 20 years ago, and all of the required components and sensors are readily available on the
Internet."

has relevance; if a system is too
integrated and interconnected, it
will be difficult to prevent massive
failures. This issue is illustrated
by the 2003 electrical power outage in northeastern portions of
the United States [39]. In the case
of an Internet-connected robot,
malicious attacks and takeovers
may emerge.

Professional Responsibility
As Spier rightly claims, when
someone deliberately wants to
cause harm, "This clearly presents
problems in detection, anticipation or correction" [40]. perhaps
a similar effort could be put
forward in the robotics realm as is
occurring in the biological realm.
researchers in the field, and companies producing robots, should
be encouraged to anticipate possible harmful applications, and
design in methods for discouraging foreseeable misuse. This
would parallel work being done to
encourage microbiologists to envision possible harmful applications
of their work [41].

The specific challenge that we
want to call attention to is whether
it is strictly necessary for each
particular robot that is in the process
of being designed to be connected
to the Internet and if so, whether
the level of risk could be mitigated
by adopting a design strategy that
could limit the potential for "contamination." Within this context,
it is important to reiterate ACM's
statement (1992) that "One way to
avoid unintentional harm is to carefully consider potential impacts on
all those affected by decisions made
during design and implementation"
[42]. An added layer of complexity, as Anderson [43] and Calo [44]
point out, is that at least some of the
"early adopters" of robots used in
the home are likely to be vulnerable
groups such as the elderly and children with disabilities.
Unfortunately there are disincentives to considering the potential
harms of a technology too deeply.
For one, it may cause problems
with regard to bringing the technology to the market. It may require
new incentives in laws and regulations that will reward companies who sincerely work towards
anticipating problems, rather than
punishing them with increased liability if an anticipated problem later
causes harm.

Constructive vs Destructive
Robot Applications
As with other technologies, robots
can be manipulated to achieve
destructive ends. According to
Marchant and pope, "The controversy is about the relative likelihood
and weighing of the constructive
and destructive applications, and
how risk adverse society should
be to the destructive applications."
[45] This is not to say, however,
that the creation of robots should,
or even could, be halted. rather,
it is our modest goal to encourage
roboticists to anticipate and discuss the ethical implications of an
emerging technology proactively,
and to design, develop, and deploy

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SprING 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2013