Motorola Adopting 3 Laws of Robotics For Android?

jfruhlinger writes "Android's popularity is growing, but its lack of enterprise security features is making IT departments pull their hair out. Two of the biggest Android vendors, Motorola and Samsung, aren't waiting for Google, but are building their own security functionality into the devices they sell. Motorola's version will be facilitated by their purchase of 3LM, an Android-centric mobile security provider that bases their strategy on Asimov's Three Laws or Robotics, though the order is tweaked: The device must protect the user, protect itself, and obey the user, in that order."

Comments

The three laws are intentionally wrong

[davecb]

... to allow for an interesting development of a series of stories that culminate in unexpected consequences. have a read, and then ask yourself what the bugs are in the restatement.

Hint: the bug is now the highest priority.

--dave

The Zeroth Law

[Yeknomaguh]

Of course, it won't be until much later that the zeroth law of phone security is discovered. That being: "The device may not harm the corporation, or, by inaction, allow the corporation to come to harm."

Wrong order.

[TheCarp]

I love my Android but, its no surprise that the maker would prioritize protection above obedience. I would change the order:
1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)
2. Protect the authorized user.
3. Protect itself.

Different orders can be considered when they become self aware. Until then, its a tool damnit. My hammer doesn't try to protect me, nor would I want it to. A safety on a gun may "protect me" but, the device definitely obeys before protects, because all the user needs to do is turn off the safety, and all protection is gone.

As the user/owner of a non-self aware device, it should obey me, even if my intention is to use it to destroy itself, or others.

Re:"building in security"

[MoonBuggy]

The 'peoples' phone: RIP. 2011

Yup. I though the same thing as soon as I saw "protect itself, and obey the user, in that order"; I'm assuming that rooting, tethering and other unauthorised usage are going to to feature on the list of things that the phone needs to 'protect itself' from. The fact that Motorola, the guys behind that whole 'eFuse' piece of crap, are involved pretty much seals the deal.

Stupid

[vadim_t]

Everybody remembers the famous 3 Laws of Robotics.

Nobody seems to remember that the stories were about how they failed over and over due to unintended consequences and and loopholes, for example robots are able to break them if they don't know they're doing so.

Re:Stupid

[maxwell demon]

User: (tries to call his girl friend)
Phone: I can't let you call this number. I'm designed to keep damage from you. My integrated medical devices noticed changes in your cardiovascular system when you call this number. Your pulse and blood pressure increase. High blood pressure is a well known risk factor for heart deceases and apoplectic stroke. I have to conclude that calling this number cannot be good for your health.

Re:"building in security"

[Beardo the Bearded]

I would prefer that if I so ask it, the device will obey me even at my peril or its own.

Sometimes human beings have to die, just a little, for something really spectacular to happen.

Re:Laws in wrong order on purpose?

[Beardo the Bearded]

I have always followed a rule for programming or hardware chicanery:

If it asks me to stop, I stop.

So far, so good.

Re:Bias

[Facegarden]

I don't get it: everyone bashed Apple when its iPhone lacked certain features (multitasking, cut and paste, enterprise security) but not one peep when Android or Windows Mobile lacks these very same features.

What? Android *does* have excellent multitasking, as well as decent cut and paste. I'm not sure about enterprise security, but I think people have blasted Android for not having it, if it doesn't.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Not so

[artor3]

The laws are not "intentionally wrong". In fact, as Asimov himself pointed out, the three laws are basically common sense for any tool. It should have safeguards to protect the user, it should accomplish what the user wants, and it should be durable. Most machinery has interlocks (first law), can be tinkered with (second law), and shouldn't smash itself to bits unless the user screws up (third law).

In fact, the laws are so reasonable and obvious that they needed to be twisted into bizarre contortions (e.g. Runaround), flat out ignored (e.g. Little Lost Robot), or overridden with the Zeroeth Law , in order to achieve most of Asimov's best stories.

New Security Paradigm

[Roger W Moore]

I hate to bust your bubble, but saying "1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)" is wrong for security. This is about security.

Rather that the "you cannot do that" security paradigm how about trying a new one: "the easiest way to do something should be a secure way to do it"? The problem with the "you cannot do that" paradigm is that invariably you can actually do it with enough hacking, which is rarely secure, and once that happens the method to do it spreads because lots of people want it.