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.'"

Comments

Maybe...

[DWMorse]

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...

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

A more apt car analogy would be suing ford because someone broke into your car. Or suing Microsoft because somebody hacked your server. There's zero precedent to these types of lawsuits, and adding "with a robot" doesn't change that. This article is fucking retarded, even for Slashdot.

Re:Maybe...

[TWX]

the argument that will be used is that the software engineer or programmer didn't do the use cases to foresee the potential for misuse and abuse of the product by criminals - and that they were therefore negligent - I don't buy this argument but lawyers are a slimy lot !

Why don't you buy it? I'm amazed that Microsoft hasn't had the crap kicked out of them due to how vulnerable their software has been to exploitation, and exploitation that has left numerous unaffiliated companies that don't even use Microsoft operating systems. Users whose computers are easily compromised and companies who have suffered the ill effects of attacks made by compromised or hijacked computers should have one hell of a case.

As far as liability for physical devices goes, while the OP's point that as an owner, misusing a product (like drunk operation of a motor vehicle) might not open the manufacturer to liability, I don't think that would even come close to the argument in a lawsuit. The argument would revolve around how 1) the manufacturer used consumer equipment and communications protocols for their equipment allowing other consumer equipment to contact the manufacturer's devices, and 2) that the manufacturer also neglected to provide sufficient safeguards to keep out those who aren't authorized to use the equipment, and the consumer protocols and equipment selected by the manufacturer made it unduly easy for even the technological layman to tamper with only minimal instruction or assistance.

IMHO, the state of commercial software development is atrocious. I don't expect every software product or operating system to be completely immune to exploitation, but the fact that commercial operating systems with large paid development teams and oversight by paid management still manage to have hundreds or thousands of weaknesses that lead to remote exploits or infections through applications like the friggin' web browser despite many users' attempts to lock down ports, installing antivirus and malware programs, and hiding behind firewalling routers, developers should be ashamed of themselves. Having worked in a company that was developing a communications application, and whose job was quality assurance, I can tell you that part of the problem is that most developers lack the devious streak to know how their software could be misused. They only see how they can make it function for X circumstances, not how Y and Z circumstances could lead to its compromise. As the QA tester it was far, far too easy to break or exploit communications daemons, and when the programmers were confronted by the evidence they got defensive and indignant instead of wanting to know more about the nature of the test or the fault. As long as that attitude prevails in programming this sort of thing will continue to plague our software, and in my opinion, development companies should be responsible for the ramifications of their decisions.

Re:Maybe...

[WrongSizeGlass]

But what if it fails to defend you properly...

Then I'll sue the programmer. Ahh, the circle of life ;-)

Stop the insanity !

[Dolphinzilla]

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

OP Doesn't Understand The Law

[automandc]

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.