See Self-defense against overflying drones (with Zak Colangelo). It’s a quick summary of some of the arguments in our (draft) paper on Self-Defense Against Robots.
I wonder–am I the most liberal guest-poster ever at Volokh’s blog? Must surely be in the top five at least.
We invite submissions for the fourth annual robotics law and policy conference—We Robot 2015—to be held in Seattle, Washington on April 10-11, 2015 at the University of Washington School of Law. We Robot has been hosted twice at the University of Miami School of Law and once at Stanford Law School. The conference web site is at http://werobot2015.org.
We Robot 2015 seeks contributions by academics, practitioners, and others in the form of scholarly papers or demonstrations of technology or other projects. We Robot fosters conversations between the people designing, building, and deploying robots, and the people who design or influence the legal and social structures in which robots will operate. We particularly encourage contributions resulting from interdisciplinary collaborations, such as those between legal, ethical, or policy scholars and roboticists.
This conference will build on existing scholarship that explores how the increasing sophistication and autonomous decision-making capabilities of robots and their widespread deployment everywhere from the home, to hospitals, to public spaces, to the battlefield disrupts existing legal regimes or requires rethinking of various policy issues. We are particularly interested this year in “solutions,” i.e., projects with a normative or practical thesis aimed at helping to resolve issues around contemporary and anticipated robotic applications.
Scholarly Papers
Topics of interest for the scholarly paper portion of the conference include but are not limited to:
These are only some examples of relevant topics. We are very interested in papers on other topics driven by actual or probable robot deployments. The purpose of this conference is to help set a research agenda relating to the deployment of robots in society, to inform policy-makers of the issues, and to help design legal rules that will maximize opportunities and minimize risks arising from the increased deployment of robots in society.
Discussants
We also invite expressions of interest from potential discussants. Every paper accepted will be assigned a discussant whose job it will be to present and comment on the paper. These presentations will be very brief (no more than 10 minutes) and will consist mostly of making a few points critiquing the author’s paper to kick off the conversation. Authors will then respond briefly (no more than 5 minutes). The rest of the session will consist of a group discussion about the paper moderated by the discussant.
Demonstrations
Unlike the scholarly papers, proposals for demonstrations may be purely descriptive and designer/builders will be asked to present their work themselves. We’d like to hear about your latest innovations—and what’s on the drawing board for the next generations of robots as well, or about legal and policy issues you have encountered in the design or deploy process.
How to Submit Your Proposal
Please send a 1-3 page abstract outlining your proposed paper, and a c.v. of the author(s) to papers@werobot2015.org.
We anticipate paying reasonable round-trip domestic coach airfare and providing hotel accommodation for presenters and discussants.
The students on the Law Review asked me to share this call for papers:
Every year, the University of Miami Law Review dedicates its fourth issue to articles analyzing current and timely issues pending within the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit issue is unique to the University of Miami Law Review-no other journal publishes an issue like it. As the premier publication for law review articles regarding the Eleventh Circuit, past issues have either provided broad overviews of relevant topics or focused on a single, relevant theme. We are now accepting submissions for Volume 69, Issue 4, which will be published in the summer of 2015. We will accept submissions from authors on any timely and important Eleventh Circuit topic. Moreover, submissions do not have to be limited to a federal issue or topic. An intertwining of both federal and state issues is welcomed, as it provides for a wider audience and a more in-depth article. If you would like to submit a current draft of an article addressing an Eleventh Circuit topic or propose an idea for an for the Eleventh Circuit article, please email Adrienne Scheffey atascheffey@students.law.miami.edu with the subject “Eleventh Circuit Issue.”
Gablesstage is running a special for students on Wednesday – $10 tickets to its 8pm performance of “Mothers and Sons” by Terrence NcNally. I saw the show this weekend and it’s good. Not the very best they’ve ever done (which is a very high bar) — the script is a little preachy in a couple of places — but very well acted, especially by Angie Radosh. Well worth seeing at full price, not to mention the discounted $30 on Wednesday, and at $10 for students it’s a steal.
Apparently the special Wednesday performance is to make up for Friday’s being cancelled for Yom Kippur. So, take a break! We’re lucky to have such a fine theater in our neighborhood. Gablesstage is located in the Biltmore Hotel, although the actual entrance is around the side on the NE corner of the hotel. Skip the valet at the main entrance: Self-park for free in the main lot, then it’s a very short walk.
Some time ago I agreed to give a talk on privacy issues 1pm this afternoon at UM’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute.
I’ve only just discovered, however, that the lecture series I’m a part of is the UM All-Stars. And they mean it: the wrap-up speaker on Oct. 13th is no less than UM’s Head Basketball Coach.
Oh, joy: despite a vigorous round of patching, Shellshock isn’t dead, and isn’t even resting:
Google security researcher Michal "lcamtuf" Zalewski has disclosed to iTnews that over the past two days he has discovered two previously unaddressed issues in the Bash function parser, one of which is as bad as the original Shellshock vulnerability.
"The first one likely permits remote code execution, but the attack would require a degree of expertise to carry out," Zalewski said.
"The second one is essentially equivalent to the original flaw, trivially allowing remote code execution even on systems that deployed the fix for the initial bug," he added.
— iTnews.com.au, Further flaws render Shellshock patch ineffective. Spotted via Slashdot
Recent Bluessky Posts
Jotwell Blenderlaw
