We Robot, annual robotics law and policy conference

**Airicist** · 24th May 2015, 00:17

WeRobot 2015 Panel 8: “Operator Signatures for Teleoperated Robots”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Authors: Tamara Bonaci, Aaron Alva, Jeffrey Herron, Ryan Calo, Howard Chizeck
Discussant: Margot Kaminski
Paper

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.

**Airicist** · 24th May 2015, 00:19

WeRobot 2015 Panel 9: “Robot Economics”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Panelists: Colin Lewis, Andra Keay, Garry Mathiason, Dan Siciliano

**Airicist** · 24th May 2015, 00:20

WeRobot 2015 Panel 10: “Personal Responsibility and Neuroprosthetics”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Authors: Patrick Moore, Timothy Brown, Jeffrey Herron, Margaret Thompson, Tamara Bonaci, Sara Goering, Howard Chizeck
Discussant: Meg Leta Jones
Paper

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.