<div dir="ltr"><div>Do Robots Have Rights? - I'm planning to submit that as a suggested session topic for the next Workshop Weekend.<br></div><div><br></div>It seems to me that whether or not an autonomous system is a sentient being seems like a primary hurdle that can't be passed in order to even answer the question of where responsibility should fall in a way that makes sense to us. I can't imagine computational entities will ever have the intent we mean in contemporary society for us to call the damages it causes a crime. Not only as a matter of the capacities of technical engineering, but even by definition of what we mean by: (1) act; and (2) intent; and (a-b) what knowledge is, in the context of both.<div>
<br></div><div>As far as I can understand such a question in terms of motive, I think responsibility should lie with the anticipated capabilities of the technology created by the programmer(s)/designer(s). Software Malfunction Liability - we have become convinced that that kind of analysis is too remote and unfairly misguided. I most definitely agree that it's hard to say what an engineer should have known, especially if the act was committed by any further iteration of the program in the autonomous system in the example. But I think we can get closer to confident about reckless design, and even grossly negligent design - not to mention unconscionable, which would make the best case for assigning liability on the designer. <div>
<br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Steve Berl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steveberl@gmail.com" target="_blank">steveberl@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Seems to me that the autonomous system is guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, or conspiracy, or something like that. Either it's a sentient being and must follow the law, or risk punishment of some sort, or it isn't, and Bob has to be responsible.<div>
<br></div><div>-steve<div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Anon195714 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">anon195714@sbcglobal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Yo's-<br>
<br>
Since I couldn't make it in person...<br>
<br>
Hypothetical: <br>
<br>
Assume the existence of intelligent computers that can make
autonomous decisions, which many folks believe will become a reality
in the near future. <br>
<br>
Alice Analyst publishes virus source code in an online computer
security publication. So far that's clearly protected speech,
nobody here would argue otherwise. <br>
<br>
Bob Badguy reads the article and types the code manually into a
computer, with the overt or covert intent for the computer to
broadcast the virus and infect other computers.<br>
<br>
Does it matter whether the computer into which Bob enters the virus
source code, is an ordinary computer that does what it's told, vs.
an intelligent computer that has the capacity to make autonomous
decisions? <br>
<br>
Clearly if the computer is an ordinary one that is not capable of
autonomous decisions, then Bob's typing of the virus code into it
would constitute an "action" rather than "speech," and would not be
protected. He could be successfully prosecuted for unleashing the
virus upon the world. <br>
<br>
But if the computer is an intelligent one that can make autonomous
decisions, then could Bob rightfully claim that his typing of the
virus code into that intelligent computer was _also_ protected
speech, merely an exercise in communication with another sentient
being, the same as Alice's original publication?<br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-03-01-Fri 8:22 AM, Eddan Katz
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div>Dear Kopimists and
the People who Love Them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the featured
Filo delicacy for Friday Filosophy, we will have potato burekas.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I propose we talk
about the difference between source code, object code, and
executable code in regards to 1st Amendment protection. In other
words, when is code speech and when is it a speech-act subject
to less legal protection? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Below is an excerpt
from an essay by Lee Tien, a brilliant EFF attorney for more
than a decade, on Software as Speech (2000). These two
paragraphs are in the section: Viruses and other "dangerous"
software.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Of course, as
always, we can talk about whatever else. Such as conscience and
the unconscionable, perhaps.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lee Tien, Publishing
Software as a Speech Act, Vol. 15 Berkeley Tech. Law Journal
(2000)</div>
<div><span style="font-family:'.HelveticaNeueUI';font-size:15px;line-height:19px;white-space:nowrap"><a href="http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html</a></span></div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;margin-bottom:0.03in"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Let’s return to the virus
hypothetical.<sup><a name="13d2caf9a500e651_13d2906010909d8c_sdfootnote193anc" href="http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote193sym" target="_blank"><sup>192</sup></a></sup> The
main concern lies in the fact that the software may be
“diverted” toward unlawful purposes, regardless of the
speaker’s intent. This concern is, however, not unique to
software. It also applies to other types of information
usable for mischief or harassment, whether highly
technical like information about nuclear weapons, or
utterly mundane like a person’s name, address or telephone
number.</span></p>
<p style="text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;margin-bottom:0.03in"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Even if the virus author merely
posts the source code and fails to release it in active
form, the issue remains whether the posting was done with
an intent to communicate. If the author claims that she
intended it to communicate, we would need to examine the
context to decide the plausibility of that claim. There
will often be a plausible claim. There is no question that
people study viruses and other dangerous software in order
to prevent or relieve harm.<sup><a name="13d2caf9a500e651_13d2906010909d8c_sdfootnote194anc" href="http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote194sym" target="_blank"><sup>193</sup></a></sup> One
way to control a virus is to publish its source code so
that systems operators can disable or protect against it.
Communicating a virus’ source code as part of such an
effort qualifies as a speech act because the publisher
intends to communicate how the virus works in a
conventional way. In fact, one could imagine entire
journals or Internet sites devoted to viruses and other
dangerous software.<sup><a name="13d2caf9a500e651_13d2906010909d8c_sdfootnote195anc" href="http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote195sym" target="_blank"><sup>194</sup></a></sup> When
such publications aim to alert the world to these dangers,
their intent is clearly communicative.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;margin-bottom:0.03in"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br>
</span></p>
<span>sent from <a href="http://eddan.com" target="_blank">eddan.com</a></span></div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><pre>_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br>-steve
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>