Monthly Archives: March 2012

‘We Robot’ News

I’ve been very remiss in not linking to all the folks who have mentioned the conference in the past few weeks. I’ll try to do better from now on. Here are the two I know of that came out today.

And ‘We Robot’ is on Facebook too.

The We Robot 2012 blog will soon start up with some pre-conference content, and in due course we’ll be tweeting as well.

Posted in Robots | Comments Off on ‘We Robot’ News

That’s Some Number

ANALYSIS: When a Congressman Becomes a Lobbyist, He Gets a 1,452% Raise (on Average) — Lee Fang at the “Republic Report”.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on That’s Some Number

Prof. Bolling Explains the New US Constitution

In easy-to-understand pictures.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Law: Constitutional Law | Comments Off on Prof. Bolling Explains the New US Constitution

Official ‘We Robot 2012’ Press Release

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW ANNOUNCES ROBOT CONVENTION Gathering of robot designers, developers and policy wonks

CORAL GABLES, FL (March 14, 2012) — Robots are the next Internet. Eventually, they could be everywhere — in the air, on battlefields, in hospitals, even in your bed. Robots will help capture criminals, take care of the elderly and drive your car.

Like the Internet, their widespread use will bring social and economic transformations. But robots will pose dangers, because in one important way, robots are not like the Internet: They interact directly with the material world. They can and will hurt people — either accidentally or deliberately. “Think of a robot as an iPhone with a corkscrew and a chainsaw attached,” says Professor A. Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law, who has put together We Robot 2012, a unique conference that will attempt to get a jump on the issues posed by robot technology.

The conference will be held at the University of Miami School of Law, in Coral Gables, Florida, on April 21 and 22.

For all their promise, robots bring with them the potential for legal and policy headaches. If robots come to mimic people with great accuracy, will they change interpersonal relationships? Will the use of robots in law enforcement erode individual privacy and due process rights? Who is responsible when robots learn to harm someone, or to kill? Is it the manufacturer, the programmers, the owners, or perhaps the unwitting neighbor who might have provoked an unexpected response? Who shoulders the criminal responsibility when machines run amok? When is killing by robot a war crime?

The inaugural “We Robot” conference will tackle these issues. It will gather experts on the front lines of robot theory, design and development, as well as those who design or influence the legal and social structures in which robots operate. Guests will include Kate Darling, IP Research Specialist at MIT Media Lab and currently co-teaching “Robot Rights” at Harvard Law School; Dr. Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Law and Technology at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law; and retired Brigadier General Richard M. O’Meara, who is a professor of International Law in the Division of Global and Homeland Security Affairs at Rutgers University.

“We want to start a conversation, both to help robot designers and policy-makers,” Froomkin says. “There are things that both robot designers and policymakers need to be thinking about, and the chance of getting it right is much greater if we get them to think about it together.”

Robots are entering the national agenda. President Barack Obama recently launched the National Robotics Initiative, a program designed to advance “next-generation robotics.” The focus is on robots that can work closely with humans — helping factory workers, healthcare providers, soldiers, surgeons and others.

That is why the time is right for a national conference to consider the social and policy issues that robots will create. “It’s still early enough to make changes,” says Froomkin, the Laurie Silvers and Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law. “Some problems will be avoided by early design changes. Other problems may require a tweak in the law to encourage the deployment of helpful new technologies. But in some cases, we’re going to find that there’s just a real conflict between what robots might do and policies we value. Even in those cases, it’s better to start the conversation early.”

The conference is free and open to the public, but advance reservations are required because of limited space. For more information, go to http://robots.law.miami.edu.

# # # #

The University of Miami’s mission is to educate and nurture students, to create knowledge, and to provide service to our community and beyond. Committed to excellence and proud of the diversity of our University family, we strive to develop future leaders of our nation and the world. The University of Miami School of Law‘s mission is to foster the intellectual discipline, creativity, and critical skills that will prepare its graduates for the highest standards of professional competence in the practice of law in a global environment subject to continual — and not always predictable — transformation; to cultivate a broad range of legal and interdisciplinary scholarship that, working at the cutting edge of its field, enhances the development of law and legal doctrine, and deepens society’s understanding of law and its role in society; and to fulfill the legal profession’s historic duty to promote the interests of justice.

Posted in Robots, Talks & Conferences | 2 Comments

Such an Honor

An outfit calling itself “the world’s premier online directory of education” has sent me an email announcing that I am on their list of “the most influential Law professors on Twitter”.

(Twitter tells me I have more than 900 followers. Is that good?)

Posted in Discourse.net | Comments Off on Such an Honor

Elections Should Be About Important Things

If the 2012 election feels hollow, this might be why. Such a massive Constitutional redesign of our American order should be debated, and a Presidential race is the right forum in which to do so. But since that’s not happening, social conflict a few years down the road is probably the more likely path.

Matt Stoller at naked capitalism

He’s writing about all the terrible things we’re learning about banks robosigning foreclosure documents…learning it conveniently days after the government has (robo?)signed off on a whitewash deal for the perpetrators. Worst fact: it’s still happening.

The thing about that quote is that it could just as easily have been about civil liberties, such as the Obama-Holder view that they can terminate any US citizen with extreme prejudice without bothering to have the slightest judicial process. Of course right now the other side probably is unhappy they haven’t killed more citizens…

Posted in 2012 Election, Civil Liberties, Econ & Money: Mortgage Mess | 1 Comment