BIS3400

Social, Professional and Ethical

Issues in Information Systems

Milestone 3

DEADLINE: 15th July 2016

Day/time of Seminar: Wednesday 11 am

Seminar Tutor Name: Waseemah Moedeen

Student Name: Idaerefagha Charles Dan-Jumbo

Student Number: M00552174

Campus: Mauritius

SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Dr. Penny Duquenoy

Social, Ethical, Legal and Professional Issues with
Household Robots

INTRODUCTION
Autonomous Machines will be all over the earth’s Surface in a couple of years from
now, they would assist humans to clean our homes, take care of our elderly, play with and
teach our kids, and yes also to have sex with us, Yes have sex with us with the introduction
of humanoid sex dolls (Robots). (Bogue, 2014) (Leroux & Roberto, 2012), (Gutiu, 2012)
Robots are increasingly evolving and interacting in close proximity to humans in different
ways (Wallach, 2008). This evolution brings a new set of ethical, social, professional and
legal challenges that has never before seen in the field (Riek, 2013). Many domestic robots
are used at home for a range of household activities like chores, educational, entertainment,
caregivers, and security or surveillance robots. Despite the benefits associated with domestic
robots (All household Robots), it raises certain ethical concern like Trustworthiness, Privacy
and security (Staake, 2004). This essay aims at pin pointing the ethical, Social legal,
Professional, Privacy and Security Implications of the future introduction of these
Autonomous Machines/Systems in our daily lives and at our homes.

ETHICAL ISSUES

In the world today when it comes to the use and development of robots, the
consideration is that Japanese companies are pacing to develop more and more humanoid
robots to assist with domestic activities in the house (Mizuta, 2014). According to Jeong. S.
H. And Kim, U. S. South Korea has a vision of a 100 percent introduction of household
robots in every home in the year 2020 (Jeong & Kim, , 2014). With the introduction of these
household robots in our living environment, it is no doubt that they pose some ethical
concerns. Some of these ethical concerns may include the threat to privacy, threat to human
dignity and trustworthiness (Staake, 2004). Furthermore, domestic robots (household robots)
are designed with a set of devices for gathering information such as 3D sensors, cameras, and
microphones these devices permit the robots to gather and store a large amount of delicate
personal information from the household it operates in (Wallhoff, 2010). Such data that can
be collected may include but not limited to lifestyle details, geographic coordinates, online
credentials, and health status of its users (Coeckelbergh, 2011). Privacy is one important
factor in the life of every human being (Papathanassopoulos, 2015). Therefore, it is no doubt
that with the purchase of a household humanoid robot like the Nao robot which can listen and
understand speech, also process it due to its advanced artificial intelligence (Zhang & and
Wang, ., 2014). Human Privacy could be compromised as it (Nao household robot) could
listen to every phone discussion, read our emails and also it could transfer these data back to
the software engineers accurately what was said, and who said it (Yan, et al., 2014) (Zhang &
and Wang, ., 2014). This type of sophisticated domestic robots could let the government and
other organisation or group of people effectively target and attack other people (Cowen,
2004. ). However, if these robots reside in the home of a terrorist and these humanoid
household robots’ records and transmits these data to a third party which in this case could
mean the software developer, criminal or terror activities could be intercepted (Smith, 2003).
Just as the consequentialism theory states that actions are deemed right or wrong depending
on the consequences and the benefit it brings to the greater number of people. In this case, a
robot collecting emails and phone conversation of a terrorist plotting a potential terrorist
attack is morally right. Meanwhile, the deontological theory which states that actions are
considered to be morally right or wrong irrespective of the consequences they produce. And
as such judging by this ethical theory a robot recording and transferring emails and phone
conversations to a third party is ethically wrong because it is a bridge of privacy of the data
subject which in this case is the terrorist. However, the use of robots at home can increase
security risks, for instance, a hacked household humanoid robot might physically attack its
users if the hacker re-configures it to be violent (Wallach, 2008). A research conducted by the
University of Washington with regards the security concerns of domestic robots has shown
that there is a possibility of multi-robot attacks, the research report shows that “a robot may
operate safely and securely in isolation, it may also facilitate attacks when used together with
other robots” (Jaulin & Le Bars, 2012). Furthermore, if a hacker gains unauthorised access to
the household humanoid robot’s operating system by means of the robot being connected to
the internet in the home which it operates in. A hacker could gain access to data already
stored in the robot’s database and steal personal data such as Credit card details, social
security number, address, bank details, health details, Personal Identity Numbers amongst
others (Penny Duquenoy, 2008). These are confidential information which could be very
sensitive if it gets to the wrong person, it could be used to conduct various crimes like
identity theft and home intrusion. However, hacking into a robot’s system could have a
different outcome depending on the hacker (Penny Duquenoy, 2008). It could be for a good
purpose like trying to expose a vulnerability (security level) of a robot’s system to the owner
or to the relevant authority. This action from a consequentialist point of view is deemed to be
right because it would prompt the producers of the household humanoid robot to improve the
security level of the household robots’ they produce and this could reduce the risk of the
robots getting hacked in the future. On the other hand, the act of hacking is morally wrong
regardless of the consequence it produced this is according to the deontological ethical theory
(Penny Duquenoy, 2008).

SOCIAL ISSUES

New Technologies are considered to socially pose some problems and most often
raise certain important concerns due to the fact that the impact of these technologies can’t be
entirely beneficial to humans (Lefevre, 2013). However, Cockshott & Renaud implied that
technology itself can not be directly harmful to a human but human application of
technology, thus it is neutral, but the use of technology by humans can either be for bad or
good (Cockshott & and Renaud, , 2016.). When developing any new technology, the right
thing to do is to take into consideration how it will be used from the onset, and trying to
create a safety measure against wrong or destructive usage of the technology (Lefevre, 2013).
Thus scientists look at both sides of the coin when it comes to the aspect of household robots
in our homes and the society in general. Furthermore, the main concern that lingers around
the use robots is their impact in the human society. Obviously, low skilled jobs like a Nanny
at home will have their jobs taken over by Domestic robots such as the Roomba robot which
is used for cleaning (Guglielmelli, 2015.). Granted it might be expensive but considering the
fact that a robot does not demand monthly or weekly wages and it cleans better than a human,
it also does not get tired, its much economical to purchase a robot than employ a human
nanny (Wallhoff, 2010). Thus this may leave the society with an excess of people with
obsolete skills and very low education with nothing to fall back on, which could lead to these
people engaging in illegal activities in order to make a living and an increased crime rate and
unemployment (Coeckelbergh, 2011). On the other hand, with the use of household robots
like the Roomba cleaning robot and the Nao humanoid robot, jobs could also be created in
the Information Technology field as opposed to being lost. This is because these robots being
machines they need to be monitored and regularly serviced in order to perform effectively
(Coeckelbergh, 2011). This means there would be more demand for Specialized Robots
engineers and artificial intelligence experts in the society (Lefevre, 2013) (Guglielmelli,
2015.). With the introduction of household robots, there is also the issue of cultural diversity
and Social norms which may be different in different parts of the world. This will give rise to
different views on the usage of these household humanoid robots at home thus consideration
should be given to different cultural beliefs when developing household robotic technologies
(Cowen, 2004. ). As there are religious beliefs that condemn the ideology of creating artificial
objects in this case household humanoid robots (Staake, 2004) (Cowen, 2004. ).

Another social issue which can arise as a result of the introduction of household
robots in our living environment is the issue of Awareness of the Technology by the users
which in this case is the general public (Baase, 2012). The users of these household robots
should be made aware of the capabilities and limits of these household robots. For instance, if
robots are acquired for household purposes, users should need to learn and be conversant
with the feature and tools which the robots use to operate in the home (Baase, 2012). It is this
new learning phase which would cause social impairments because most of the users will be
the general public thus creating awareness is very important in this field. On the other hand,
with the introduction of household robots in our living environments the level of computer
and information technology literacy would improve (Cockshott & and Renaud, , 2016.). This
will impact the society positively because when this household robotic technology is to be
introduced in a home the people living in that home will be trained on how to operate the
robot. Thus this is a new learning experience in information technology and computer for the
users which could, in turn, impact the society (McMillan, 2016.) (Yan, et al., 2014). Lastly,
with the increasing amount of elderly people in our society, coupled with the technological
advances in the robotics industry (household robots) increases the likelihood of Robots being
used for the care of the elderly (Sharkey & and Noel Sharkey, 2010). These robot caregivers
which would mostly be humanoid domestic robots would assist humans at our homes in
monitoring the health of our elderly, providing companionship and also assist our senior
citizens in carrying out their daily activities (Sharkey & and Noel Sharkey, 2010).

However, there are some social concerns associated with the use of robots for elderly
care. Nevertheless, it will become clear that in everyone of these scenarios there are reasons
to fear that with the introduction of household humanoid robots could decrease the quality of
living of senior citizens in our society (Sharkey & and Noel Sharkey, 2010) (Osch, 2012).
Furthermore, With the use of robots for elderly care in our homes there is consideration of the
violation of the human rights and shared human values of the senior citizens in the society
(Sharkey & and Noel Sharkey, 2010). With the emphasis on human rights, there is gives
support for assuming that the psychological and physical well-being of the senior citizens is
also as important as the well-being of other citizens. Some of the fundamental human rights
which are stated in documents like the Universal declaration of Human Rights, the laws
which apply to the elderly in the society includes the "Right to family life and a better
standard of living" , " Right to freedom from discrimination, inhuman and degrading
treatment". In conclusion, the Human Rights of the elderly should be respected just as the
rights of other are being respected. It is however, important to make sure that robots which
are being introduced in our homes for elderly care benefits the senior citizens themselves and
is not just a means to decrease the burden of the elderly on the rest of the society.

LEGAL

It has been debated that a good place to begin when talking about ethics in robots is
from a legal point of view, therefore this section takes into consideration the legal issues that
may arise from the introduction of domestic/household robots in our Society. It is essential to
clarify that legal point of view is not the same as moral point of view. (Staake,
2004).Important legal issues need to be met if domestic robots are to be fully put to use in
every household across the world. These issues which include the legal point/capacity of
these domestic robots, liability in case of damage/injury, data privacy, and issues regarding
intellectual property ownership of domestic robots (Wallach, 2008) (Chris Holder *, et al.,
2016).

Liability issues arise with the use of household robots to perform tasks at home when
humans assign specific tasks to a domestic robot and something goes wrong or damages
happen who bears the responsibility? In this case of liability, it is argued according to the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), “A Robot is not legally
responsible for anything” and as such cannot be blamed for an accident or damage it causes
because it is only but a tool (Gov.UK Research Council UK, 2016). Thus a human should be
held accountable for a damage caused by a domestic humanoid robot. Although trying to
figure out who is responsible may not always be easy. In the UK there is a register of who is
responsible for a car and it is kept by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in
comparison, nobody needs to register as the owner of a dog or a cat (Gov.UK Research
Council UK, 2016). However, there should be a register for all owners of domestic robots
because there will be interests not only to prevent a domestic robot who is causing damages
but also people who are affected by the actions of this robot may also seek a settlement from
the person responsible for the domestic robot. Responsibility can be tackled in different ways,
for instance, there could be a licence that contains details of who is responsible for a domestic
robot (Gov.UK Research Council UK, 2016). This might be the case for all domestic robot
ownership or just the situation where ownership of a domestic robot is not visible such as in
the case of a robot that roams outside a house (Gov.UK Research Council UK, 2016). On the
other hand, all domestic robots could be sold with a built-in online licence which contains the
name of the manufacturer and the licenced human who bought the robot that way the legal
liability could be shared between the manufacturer and the owner of the domestic robot. The
issue of liability when it comes to care robots for the elderly is a very important case,
however, it is beyond imagination that if a domestic care robot is lifting an individual from a
bed to a wheelchair and vice versa, and it injures the person who is should be responsible? In
this case the responsible party could theoretically be the manufacturer, the designer, the
person who sold the robot to the user, the person(s) who maintain the robot or even the user
of the robot for making use of the robot in a way that is not recommended by the producer of
the robot (Chris Holder *, et al., 2016).

Domestic robots constantly collect sensitive information around its environment and
thus gives a wide range of information out to the people or experts that process this
information (Chris Holder *, et al., 2016). For instance if a robot collects health information
of its user, the data could be transferred to the users healthcare specialist for an improved
level of health care provided, or it could get into the wrong hands by means of the robot’s
system being compromised by hackers since they are always connected to the internet they
are prone to hackers who could obtain various information already stored in the memory of
the robot or they could be disclosed to a third party, The Human Rights Act Article 8 states
that “Everyone has the right to respect for his Private and family life, home or
correspondence” , furthermore, The Data Protection Act 1998 states that “Data must be
gathered lawfully under strict conditions and for legitimate reason” (Legislation.gov.uk,
1998) (Legislation.gov.uk, 2016) And also organisations that collect and deal with these
sensitive information have the ultimate responsibility to shield it from hackers or from being
illegally obtain just as stated in The data protection Act 1998 Schedule 2 (Chris Holder *, et
al., 2016). Though in rare situations information is permitted to be used solely for research
purposes by medical professionals besides the medical information health professionals get
can be used to save an individuals life when medical records of the particular individual are
not readily available (Legislation.gov.uk, 1998). There is no doubt that people should possess
the ability to regulate their information which is made available to various agencies but most
often these rights are denied and sensitive information is collected without the consent of the
data subject.

PROFESSIONAL

Computer professionals have the responsibility of not just considering the usability of
machines/devices (which in this case are household robots), but also to make sure that these
machines follow certain ethical principles and to consider the effects of its decision-making
capabilities and its interaction with other devices/systems (Penny Duquenoy, 2008).
Professional ethics involves a computer/IT professional’s relationship and responsibilities to
their clients, colleagues, employers, employees and those people who their product and
services affect negatively or positively (Baase, 2012). Furthermore, the area of robotics is still
a growing one and most people that might make use of household robots in their home are
not fully aware of how to work these machines and cannot judge their safety and quality
(robots) (Baase, 2012). Hence it is the responsibility of the manufacturers to effectively
sensitise/educate their clients on how to make use of these machines and also its terms and
conditions incase there is a damage caused by the robot in a household. An IT professional
can impact the life, health, privacy and future of a client by the services and work they do
thus there can be damage or harm by dishonesty or incompetence of a professional (Baase,
2012). Therefore, it is the duty of the professional to notify a client before giving away
sensitive data that might be in their possession by means of monitoring and maintenance of
the domestic robot’s system.

Computer professionals adhere to certain rules and guidelines while working, which
are known as code of conducts (McMillan, 2016.) , therefore it is the responsibility of a
computer professional to follow these rules one of which is the British Computer Society
(BCS) Code of Conduct. For instance, a situation where a domestic humanoid robot in a
home collects and stores data from its users, according to the BCS code of conduct section 1
(Public Interest) it is the responsibility of professionals to safeguard and secure private
information which is obtained by the client's robot and also to respect their privacy (society,
2011). On the other hand, according to the BCS code of conduct section 3d, professionals
have the responsibility to give out personal information of clients with permission from the
relevant authorities or as stated by the law (society, 2011).

LIMITATIONS

The robotic industry is constantly emerging with different technologies aimed at integrating
robots in our homes (Tamara Denning, et al., 2009). The benefits associated with the use of
robotics are obvious, such as assisting humans in chores, entertainment, promoting
telepresence, elderly care and also for companionship (Tamara Denning, et al., 2009).
However, there are a lot of vulnerabilities and threats domestic robots pose that cannot be
ignored, for instance with the use of domestic robots as a companion such as the sex dolls
humans might actually develop real emotions for these robots which could lead to social
isolation (Gutiu, 2012). As stated earlier domestic robots also pose security and privacy
threats to humans by means of the multiple sensors and cameras attached to them.

Information collected by these robots could be leaked to a third party by means of

carelessness on the path of the professionals who manage these data or just by means of
security loopholes in the system of the robots which could leave it vulnerable to hackers
(Baase, 2012).

CONCLUSION

The robotic age is fast approaching and sooner or later the whole earth will be
crawling with robots that will interact with humans on a daily basis, they would be in our
homes, offices, schools, basically, everywhere you can find a human and even some places
you can not (Dodig Crnkovic, 2011). There is no doubt that different ethical issues might
arise with the use of this robots in our homes (Mizuta, 2014). This essay has outlined and
discussed some basic ethical, social, legal and professional issues that might arise as a result
of the future use of Domestic Robots in our household and environments.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baase, S., 2012. Social, Legal and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology. A Gift of Fire, 4(2), pp. 404-495.

Bogue, R., 2014. Industrial Robot. Robot ethics and law, pp. 335-339.

Chris Holder *, Vikram Khurana, , Faye Harrison, & Louisa Jacobs, 2016. Robotics and law: Key legal and
regulatory implications of the robotics age (Part I of II). Computer law & Security Review, 32(32), p. 383–402.

Cockshott, P. & and Renaud, , K., 2016.. Humans, robots and values.. Technology in Society, 2(45), pp. 19-28..

Coeckelbergh, M., 2011. Is Ethics of Robotics about Robots?. Philosophy of Robotics Beyond Realism and
Individualism. Law, Innovation and Technology, pp. 241-250.

Cowen, R., 2004. . People, Not Robots. Science News, 166, (, 388.), p. 25/26.

Crane, C. D., 2007. Kinematic Analysis of Robot Manipulators. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.

Dodig Crnkovic, G. a. Ç. B., 2011. Robots: ethical by design. Ethics and Information Technology, Issue 14, pp.
61-71.

Gates, B., 2007. A robot in every home. Scientific American 296, January, Issue 1, p. 58–65..

Gov.UK Research Council UK, 2016. Principles Of Robotics. [Online]

Available at: https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/ourportfolio/themes/engineering/activities/
principlesofrobotics/
[Accessed 30 June 2016].

Guglielmelli, E., 2015.. Quest for Robots, Quest for Jobs. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , 22(1), pp. 4-
4..

Gutiu, S., 2012. Sex Robots and Roboticization of Consent. We Robot Conference 2012, 1(1), pp. 1-24.

Jaulin, L. & Le Bars, F., 2012. An interval approach for stability analysis. IEEE Transaction on Robotics, I(2).

Jeong, S. & Kim, , U., 2014. Ten-Year Results of Home Vision-Screening Test in Children Aged 3–6 Years in
Seoul, Korea.. Seminars in Ophthalmology, 5(6), pp. 383-388.

Lefevre, R., 2013. Promoting New and Important Technologies [Viewpoint].. IEEE Electrification Magazine, 1(1),
pp. 72-72..

Legislation.gov.uk, 1998. Legislation.gov.uk. [Online]

Available at: Legislation.gov.uk
[Accessed 25 March 2016].

Leroux, C. & Roberto, L. (. A., 2012. Ethical Legal and Societal issues in robotics. euRobotics The European
Robotics Coordination Action, 1(1), pp. 14-38.
McMillan, M., 2016.. Enterprising Investor: Practical analysis for investment professionals. Codes of Ethics,
February.Issue 10 .

Mizuta, K., 2014. When Will Robots Come of Age?. World Future Review. Human and Robots Interaction:, 6(3),
pp. 251-260.

Osch, M. B. D. K. Y. a. H. K., 2012. Tele-operated service robots for household and care. Gerontechnology, Issue
11.

Papathanassopoulos, S., 2015. "Privacy 2.0". Social Media + Society 1.1. s.l.:s.n.

Penny Duquenoy, S. J. a. B. G. B., 2008. Ethical Legal and Professional Issues in Computing. London: Middlesex
University Press.

Riek, L., 2013. An Active-Learning Approach to Mobile Robotics Education. IEEE Trans. Educ.. Embodied
Computation, pp. 67-72..

San, K., 2000. Neighbourhood Watch Group. ASEAN As A , pp. 279-301.

Sharkey, A. & and Noel Sharkey, 2010. Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly.,
Shefield: University of Shefield Press.

Smith, M. :. A., 2003. Government Relations. The USA Patriot Act., pp. 89-93.

society, B. c., 2011. BCS, The chattered institute for IT. [Online]
Available at: bsc.org
[Accessed 25 march 2016].

Staake, B., 2004. Hello, robots. New York: Viking.

Tamara Denning, Cynthia Matuszek, , Karl Koscher, & Joshua R. Smith,, 2009. A Spotlight on Security and
Privacy Risks with Future Household Robots. Attacks and Lessons, 1(1), pp. 3-10.

Wallach, W. &. A. C., 2008. Moral Machines, Teaching robots right from wrong. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Wallhoff, F., 2010. Interacting with robots.. SPIE Newsroom..

Yan, J., Wang, Z. & and Yan, Y., 2014. Research on Household Intelligent Robot Based on Artificial Psychology..
AMR 898,, 1(1), pp. 586-589.

Zhang, H. & and Wang, ., L., 2014. Design of Controlling Program of the Humanoid Robot NAO Based on
LabVIEW. AMM. Design of Controlling Program of the Humanoid Robot NAO Based on LabVIEW. AMM, 1(3),
pp. 484-485, 562-569..