Slashdot Mirror
Robots May Inspire Suits Against Programmers
cpu6502 writes "Robert Silverberg wrote a recent editorial about the dangers of robots and the legal consequences for their programmers and engineers: 'Consider malicious kids hacking into a house that uses a robot cleaning system and reprogramming the robot to smash dishes and break furniture. If the hackers are caught and sued, but turn out not to have any assets, isn't it likely that the lawyers will go after the programmer who designed it or the manufacturer who built it? In our society, the liability concept is upwardly mobile, searching always for the deepest pocket.'"
Maybe... But last I saw, Ford Motor Company wasn't liable for drunk drivers that use their vehicles to drink and drive, resulting in death or destruction of property. This makes me think that engineering a product doesn't necessarily make you liable for someone that breaks it apart.
Now, if your product was a security software, and you advertised it to supposedly prevent this...
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Or even news?
What happens if kids break into your house and break your dishes? You sue their parents? You sue the school for not teaching them well? You sue the government for not putting enough money in education?
There is no logic to who gets sued. Suing is an interesting part of physics - whenever there is a "Lots of money" gradient, and a "Has worse Lawyers" gradient, the suing target moves.
Now I'll just be off suing microsoft for my latest virus. Brb.
This in my opinion is a major reason our society is so screwed up - why should we even consider it reasonable that lawyers can go after software engineers and programmers to "make someone pay" because the real criminals have no assets. Product liability insurance is a major reason why some things cost so much and until we break the cycle and get the lawyers out of control (most of them run our governments)these frivolous lawsuits will continue - in the end the only people that really win are the lawyers. This is the same argument as going after a Glock handgun designer because one of their weapons was used to shoot someone - its absurdity to the max
remembered the movie 'Runaway'? Cynthia Rhodes was hot then.
But she wasn't sued because the rest of the movie sucked.
because the legal system encourages profiteering over reparations. especially for the law firms. it is natural that these firms would use any excuse to have people sue other people for all kinds of bullshit.
Read radical news here
1. Manufacturers will very likely isolate their product from function, only selling unprogrammed tools with APIs, to companies who resell the devices with an OS with strict functionality limitations, and DRM-like lockouts to isolate themselves from liability.
2. Companies will be careful in the beginning to set precedence that allows them to bypass such liability. Likely they'll create a set of manufactured "harm" scenarios, with honest but complicit victims with a vested interest in blocking most future lawsuits based on indirect liability.
Only once liability precedence has been set will the APIs open up on consumer tools from the major manufacturers. The court system may be insane in many ways - but they function to the needs of large companies - mostly as a negotiation device, and a filter for amount of money owned ("You must be this rich to use the court system").
Ryan Fenton
Yes it is the CEO or Engineering director they should go after. We had a boss who was insistent that we did not waste money getting our equipment tested by an external body for electrical safety, until he was informed that he was the person that could go to prison if some died as a result.
Instead of locking the punks up, make them pay the victim 7 times the value of the damaged property. Deny them welfare until they've paid it back. If they commit another felony while they're still paying it off, double the sentence for that felony.
On the surface, it may sound harsh, but if they do $1000 of damage to their neighbor and the court makes them pay back $7,000 as restitution and punishment instead of booking them in the pokey for two years, which is less disruptive? Having to pay back $7,000 with no interest at 1-2x minimum wage or doing prison time and then trying to find a job?
Most software licenses have waivers of liability, and have a limit on the monetary damages.
Liability clauses can work both ways.
If a robot company produces and sells robots that cause harm, then they can be sued under product liability laws, which apply strict liability standards (in the US, anyway), which means that absent post-sale changes to the product, the producer/seller is liable, period. (If the harm is caused by a hacker, that's a different story.)
However, if a software company provides a service to a robot company, then the software may fall under a different liability doctrine in which the robot company would need to prove that the software company failed to use a reasonable standard of care in order to collect from them. Reasonable care is determined largely by comparing to the typical standard of care in the industry. In that case, any decent programmer would be safe from liability.
However, any competent legal advisor for the robot company would add clauses to the contract requiring the software company to indemnify the robot manufacturer from software failure. This is what insurance companies are for.
IANAL
YMMV
I recall the MS EULA specifically prevents any liability. It's near the bit that forbids the use of general-purpose Windows licences in the operation of nuclear facilities or other places there there is potential for epic fail. Maybe robots will have an EULA too, with a similar clause.
1 A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2 A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3 A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
4 A robot must not make a mess and if it does it must clear up after itself.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Precisely. Most of them didn't even move.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Why do people always assume that just because it's in the EULA, it's legally binding. It's a factor, certainly, but generally courts take a dim view of companies trying to weasel out of their legal obligations with this sort of thing. There's still an expectation that the software is fit for purpose.
As an attorney, reading this question invokes the same reactions that many of the /. crowd would have if I started trying to opine on the technical failings that would allow our mythical vandals to reprogram the hypothetical robot.
Not to get too technical, but just because you sue the company doesn't mean you win. The liability insurance that even the smallest companies carry would cover the legal costs of having such a suit dismissed. (For the technically inclined, look up comparative negligence and the proverbial "intervening bad actor").
The homeowner (the ones suing) would probably be found more responsible for not following basic security etc.
As others have pointed out, software companies have long been given practically a free ride in harm caused by poorly written software. First, they have been allowed to disclaim the standard warranties of fitness and function. This is akin to buying a car that the manufacturer won't promise to actually work or be safe. If Ford told you that they wouldn't guarantee that pressing the brake pedal actually engaged the brakes, would you drive that car? Yet every piece of commercial software we use specifically says that there is no promise that it will work at all, or do what the purchaser wants.
Here is a counter hypothetical (more realistic as it has actually happened). A relative dies in a plane crash. The FAA investigation conclusively shows that the accident was caused by a bug in one of the key computer systems. Should you sue: the airline? The manufacturer (boeing/airbus)? The subcontractor that wrote the software?
The answer is, you sue the airline, and the system is set up so that anything you win from them, they can then sue to recover from the party up the chain. Thus, everyone's liability is ultimately apportioned according to their degree of fault (note, yes it is a gross simplification). This is why people writing software for critical systems (ones where a failure can cause property damage or injury) need a good lawyer to write their contracts/licenses. They law has allowed programmers to avoid their responsibilties for a long time, so if a sw company doesn't take advantage of that, it is their own fault.
Consider, there is no educational or professional certification required to write and sell software that controls an infant incubator used in an NICU, but you need a government license to drive to the store. Programmers and engineers have been getting a sweet deal in liability for years, so it's awesome to hear them still complaining.
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
Wait, is he claiming robots will suddenly make software have more real world consequences? If so, I'd like to introduce him to Therac-25... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Short, not too squeamish version: Software bug in rare cases allowed radiation overdoses. People died.