Who's Responsible When Your Semi-Autonomous Shopping Bot Purchases Drugs Online?

Nerval's Lobster writes Who's responsible when a bot breaks the law? A collective of Swiss artists faced that very question when they coded the Random Darknet Shopper, an online shopping bot, to purchase random items from a marketplace located on the Deep Web, an area of the World Wide Web not indexed by search engines. While many of the 16,000 items for sale on this marketplace are legal, quite a few are not; and when the bot used its $100-per-week-in-Bitcoin to purchase a handful of illegal pills and a fake Hungarian passport, the artists found themselves in one of those conundrums unique to the 21st century: Is one liable when a bunch of semi-autonomous code goes off and does something bad? In a short piece in The Guardian, the artists seemed prepared to face the legal consequences of their software's actions, but nothing had happened yet—even though the gallery displaying the items is reportedly next door to a police station. In addition to the drugs and passport, the bot ordered a box set of The Lord of the Rings, a Louis Vuitton handbag, a couple of cartons of Chesterfield Blue cigarettes, sneakers, knockoff jeans, and much more.

Comments

i cant even

[ganjadude]

get my guy to call me back on time, now there is a bot that takes care of all the dirty work for me??!?!?!!

Re:i cant even

[Aighearach]

hmmm, I just walk into the store and purchase my stuff

I can't imagine spending my life in a place so far into the 3rd world that they sell fake Hungarian passports in shops. I would totally send in the tele-presence robot for that one.

Yes, but for specific reasons

[TWX]

The creator of a device that breaks the law because the creator either negligently or intentionally set up the device to break the law is responsible, as that creator set the conditions for the operation of the device.

The creators knew both that they were designing something to make its own decisions without programming any real concept of legality in the process, and setting it to operate in an environment which is known to have served to facilitate criminal activity.

The degree of responsibility is up for grabs, and that's why things like limited liability corporations exist, to attempt to shield the owners from being personally liable, but the act itself is still criminal. One can even debate the line between engineering and art, since the bot is an artificial construct that actively does something in the greater world, rather than a passive display or something contained to its own small environment.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Slick_W1lly]

I cannot agree with this.

The programmers just set the thing up to 'buy whatever'. At the time, 'whatever' may have simply been a bunch of knockoff handbags. It's not illegal to buy those... the seller may get slapped for violating a trademark, or something - but no-one's going to come rip your handbag out of your hands or put you in jail.

And, quite honestly - the feckin' article tells the submitter 'who is responsible'. If the law says : 'knowingly violated' - they are not responsible. If the law says 'recklessly violated' then there is a case to be made.

But let me spin you this :

>The creator of a device that breaks the law because the creator either negligently or intentionally set up the device to break the law is responsible

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[tverbeek]

Another human that you create is not a "semi-autonomous bot". It is a self-aware person, and is held responsible for its own actions. Maybe if you can demonstrate that your bot is sentient and fully autonomous, that'll get you off the hook.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Blaskowicz]

No, this may depend on juridictions but buying, acquiring a counterfeit good or even owning it may be a liable offense just like doing the same with stolen goods.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[prelelat]

I think you are over complicating this. Use the analogy of a bridge. The bridge is designed to allow people to pass over it, and if it's designed properly it will allow people to pass over it. If the bridge collapses it becomes a question of was the bridge built properly was it checked to see if it would fail before hand was it built according to the original plan. If there is a design flaw someone(typically the engineer who stamped the documents) can be held liable.

I think the same could be said here. If the design was flawed in that it bought illegal things that's one thing when it's suppose to be searching say amazon. Here I would question it's design because it was designed to buy things from where it did. In the design there was a decent chance it could hit illegal materials, and it did. I think if they didn't build anything to compensate for that it's on them. It's like asking, is it really assault if you close your eyes and start swinging at the air and just happen to hit people?

also where's the originality http://xkcd.com/576/

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Crimey McBiggles]

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

While scripts aren't children, in any event parents are often held responsible for the actions of their children.

Check out this article.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Em Adespoton]

The creators of Google knew they were designing something to make its own decisions (about what to copy) without programming any real concept of legality in the process, and setting it to operate in an environment which is known to have served to facilitate criminal activity.

Does that set the perspective any better?

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[ceoyoyo]

A computer program is a tool. If I toss a hammer off a scaffold and it hits someone, I'm responsible. I can't just say "the hammer did it, not me." The crime or non-crime I'm responsible for may vary depending on the circumstances. If I threw the hammer on purpose or accidentally kicked it off, whether I took sufficient safety precautions, etc.

These artists are clearly responsible for whatever their program did, and it purchased illegal drugs from a website. If Switzerland doesn't have a legal distinction between purchasing drugs and possession or use then hopefully smart cops, district attorneys, judges will take the mitigating circumstances into account. But it doesn't absolve the artists of responsibility.

Incidentally, where I live (and I believe in the US, probably in Europe as well) you can absolutely be held responsible for the actions of your children, until they reach an age where they are legally determined to be responsible themselves.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[dbIII]

Right after you get your Nobel Prize for creating a self aware bot then as it's gaurdian you'll still have to take responsibility for whatever crimes it commits.
Since we haven't got that far this is a simple "my dog bit someone" or "I left the handbrake off and my car rolled away and hit something" situation.

Personally I see this situation as a simple one of not defining tasks properly for a machine and the results are obvious in hindsight.

If you set a machine to do a task and it fucks up due to poor task definition then the responsibility clearly lies with the person who set it loose in such a state.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

I think you're over-simplifying here. Just because a machine has a design flaw does not elevate any accident it has to a crime, or an intentional act.

If you close your eyes and throw a punch, your intent is still to throw a punch that you know might land. You haven't changed intent at all. But if you build an experimental personal conveyance device, and it breaks, and you fall off, and your hand strikes me in the face, you're responsible for any damages but it probably not assault. It may be some sort of reckless endangerment, depending on a wide variety of other facts and complications, though.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

Parents are civilly responsible for whatever their kids do, potentially even including signing contracts, but in modern countries they are not criminally responsible for their children's acts. Though permitting some acts may be an additional crime.

If you read your link, it describes laws where permitting some acts is an additional violation or crime, and then civil liability. It never claims a parent has criminal liability for the laws the child breaks.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[gnoshi]

Having your personal conveyance device break is abnormal or unexpected function. The bot buying (at random) whatever was available was the intended function.

The Absolutely Fabulous Robot

[Irate Engineer]

I got this mental picture of a robot wearing jeans, high heels, clutching a Louis Vuitton handbag and a credit card strutting by and saying "I'm Shoppppppinnng!!!!" Stupid brain.

Re:The Absolutely Fabulous Robot

[denzacar]

...and it's on drugs. And it has a fake Hungarian passport to its name.

Re:The Absolutely Fabulous Robot

[Irate Engineer]

Great, now my brain has named the robot Zsa Zsa Gabor.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[TWX]

“But our lawyer and the Swiss constitution says art in the public interest is allowed to be free.”

The distinction comes from the possibility for art to also be something else. I find some automobiles to be works of art, but that doesn't mean that I can drive them any way, anywhere I want, or can park them to display them anywhere I want. Even if I create a car or re-body a car so that it's truly unique, the rules of being a car are still in-effect.

The rules of being a computer program or a device should still apply even if the program or device can also be called art.

Bender Should Not Be Allowed on Television

[Thud457]

This bot, it paid for blackjack and hookers?

Oblig XKCD

[khasim]

http://xkcd.com/576/

Simple answer is:

[bobbied]

You...

If YOUR bot buys something, it does so on your behalf so YOU are responsible. The question here really is: can your lack of understanding of what the bot was going to do provide a defense if your program buys something illegal. I'm guessing the answer to THAT question is "NO" but this is a question for the courts to decide.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[amicusNYCL]

I don't think the program necessarily is the art, as far as the artists are concerned. The exhibition isn't the software necessarily, it is the collection of all of the items that the software "decided" to purchase. That means that the drugs themselves are part of the art exhibit. The full quote shows that they are aware of the fact that the drugs aren't legal on their own.

"We are the legal owner of the drugs - we are responsible for everything the bot does, as we executed the code," says Smoljo. "But our lawyer and the Swiss constitution says art in the public interest is allowed to be free."

So, in this context, it is legal for them to be in possession of the otherwise-illegal drugs. Or, at least they think so.

The obvious question...

[jopsen]

Another human that you create is not a "semi-autonomous bot". It is a self-aware person, and is held responsible for its own actions.

Can you prove that your teenage kid is sentient and fully autonomous?
Actually that an interesting question :) And at what age does this happen?

Re:The obvious question...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Note that I can't prove that YOU are sentient and fully autonomous, much less my kid....

Re:The obvious question...

[Mashiki]

Can you prove that your teenage kid is sentient and fully autonomous?
Actually that an interesting question :) And at what age does this happen?

Well....

Yes. It's called mens rea. And it depends on where you live, in some cases it's 9 years old in Canada it's 12 years old. That's the legal definition of "sentient and fully autonomous" while knowing the difference between "right and wrong."

Re:The obvious question...

[gstoddart]

Well, given that parents can be liable for the debts of their adult children, I would argue in those states, they will never be fully autonomous.

So, if you live in any of these states:

Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

the law says they are never fully autonomous, and you could be on the hook.

Grand, aint it?

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[rudy_wayne]

Is one liable when a bunch of semi-autonomous code goes off and does something bad?

The entire premise here is flawed. The code didn't just accidentally do something bad.

That would be like me randomly shooting a gun and if a bullet happens to kill someone I say "I didn't do it deliberately so it's OK".

Re:Only Semi-Autonomous?

[zlives]

its interesting to me

non-autonomous bot = does as programmed = good programmer
autonomous bot = AI = you are a programming god
semi-autonomous = it does random shit = bad programmer

Depends on location and...

[denzacar]

...the choice of target.
There are certain people out there willing to kill certain people out there for no money at all.

For bonus points, have the bot convince random people that it is a teenage girl, THEN get them to "off someone" in exchange for sexual favors.
Oldest "girl" with most kills wins.

It's OK. Turing would approve.
I know that from watching that Cabbagepatch movie.

My browser bought drugs. My bot hacked your comput

[raymorris]

If my browser sends an order to buy drugs, based on me clicking things like "Submit Order", I used my computer and browser to make the order. Clearly I'm responsible. Whether I place the order by using cash, a telephone, or a browser, the person running it made the purchase.

If my bot infects your computer, based on me typing code like:
for each ip in network
do
      try_to_infect(ip)
done

I used a Word macro to infect you. Clearly, I am responsible. It doesn't mater if I use a Word macro, a boot-sector virus, or a hammer to destroy your computer - I did it, the hammer or macro is just the tool I used.

If I use my computer to submit an order for illegal drugs by typing:

while true
do
    buy_random_item(piratebay)
done

Then once I again, I bought drugs using a program I wrote as the tool. I'd be the one who chose to order random stuff from someone selling illegal stuff. The bot I wrote is just the tool I used to place the order.

Did it violate First Law of Robotics?

[billstewart]

If it bought meth or Nigerian Herbal Fake Viagra and let you use it, then yes. (Bad robot!)

If it bought cannabis or some other safe but politically incorrect substance, then it might have violated the Second Law, depending on whether Swiss law commands robots and other non-humans not to buy them, or only humans. (Also, if it bought cannabis and let you drive under the influence, that'd be a First Law problem, but any robot smart enough to buy dope online is smart enough to emulate an Uber app and call for a ride.)

Under US law, property that commits crimes or torts (such as a car used to buy drugs or a dog that bites people) is subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, so your dope-buying robot might be subject to arrest, and might end up as a slave of the US government, buying dope for them instead of you, but I assume Swiss law isn't quite that silly.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Baloroth]

It's not okay, but it wouldn't be murder either. It would be manslaughter.

That depends. If you should have known the gun would have a significant chance of hitting someone, you could well be facing a full murder charge. Randomly shooting a gun in a field in the country? Probably manslaughter. Doing the same in a crowded shopping mall? Yep, that'd be murder. Likewise this bot was shopping randomly on a darknet that has a lot of illegal stuff for sale, and the creator would (absolutely should have, anyways) have known that, which means he would be legally liable for the purchases (if the government decided to press the issue).

Fake Hungarian Passport

[rossdee]

My hovercraft is full of eels

Re:As a hungarian...

[Aighearach]

Can a bot have a positive drug test?

I can program one to, for a fee.

Re: Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[TWX]

(to both parent comment and grandparent comment)

They may think that it's legal to set-up a Rube Goldberg Machine scenario to attempt to put the final actions at arms' length, but the fact that they set up all conditions along the way should mean that they cannot make such an arms' length claim.

As far as intent to commit an illegal act, it looks like they did intend to commit an illegal act, and are trying to somehow get that illegal act interpreted as art or speech or whatever Swiss law has as an equivalent. I don't think that their attempt will fly.

As to keeping whatever contraband was ordered, normally for contraband to be used in some fashion when it's otherwise illega, it's cleared in-advance with a prosecuting authority and a court, giving the entity using the contraband some form of limited immunity for possessing the contraband. That we're having this discussion indicates that this was not done. When I was a kid, I was taught to never buy something illegal (like drugs) from someone with the intention of presenting those drugs to the authorities, because it was still illegal for me to be in possession of those drugs and illegal to purchase those drugs, and I wouldn't have had any prior immunity to protect me. Even if my intentions were completely above-board I'd still get into trouble. That's where they are now, at a minimum, assuming as the party that set this software bot up is held responsible for its actions.

Your cat roams the neighborhood at will

[TarPitt]

Then one night shows up at your back door with your neighbor's heroin stash.

Did you break the law or did the cat?

Is the cat effectively your bot?

And can Schrodinger's cat pass the Turing test?