Responsible Domestic Robotics: Exploring Ethical Implications of Robots in the Home

Purpose The vision of robotics in the home promises increased convenience, comfort, companionship and greater security for users. The robot industry risks causing harm to users, being rejected by society at large or being regulated in overly prescriptive ways if robots are not developed in a socially responsible manner. The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the challenges and requirements for designing responsible domestic robots. Design/methodology/approach The paper examines definitions of robotics and the current commercial state of the art. In particular, it considers the emerging technological trends, such as smart homes, that are already embedding computational agents in the fabric of everyday life. The paper then explores the role of values in design, aligning with human computer interaction, and considers the importance of the home as a deployment setting for robots. The paper examines what responsibility in robotics means and draws lessons from past home information technologies. An exploratory pilot survey was conducted to understand user concerns about different aspects of domestic robots such as form, privacy and trust. The paper provides these findings, married with literature analysis from across technology law, computer ethics and computer science. Findings By drawing together both empirical observations and conceptual analysis, this paper concludes that user centric design is needed to create responsible domestic robotics in the future. Originality/value This multidisciplinary paper provides conceptual and empirical research from different domains to unpack the challenges of designing responsible domestic robotics. In doing this, the paper seeks to bridge the gap between the normative dimensions of how responsible robots should be built, and the practical dimensions of how people want to live with them in context.

[1]  Mark Weiser,et al.  Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing , 1993, CACM.

[2]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision , 2007, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[3]  Derek McAuley,et al.  Realising the right to data portability for the domestic Internet of things , 2017, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[4]  Stefan Saroiu,et al.  Home automation in the wild: challenges and opportunities , 2011, CHI.

[5]  Alain Karsenty,et al.  Unremarkable computing , 2002, CHI.

[6]  Liisa Annukka Mäkinen,et al.  Surveillance ON/OFF. Examining home surveillance systems from the user's perspective. , 2016 .

[7]  Steve Benford,et al.  The evolution of buildings and implications for the design of ubiquitous domestic environments , 2003, CHI '03.

[8]  Ronald Leenes,et al.  Laws on Robots, Laws by Robots, Laws in Robots: Regulating Robot Behaviour by Design , 2014 .

[9]  Lachlan Urquhart Bridging the gap between law & HCI: designing effective regulation of human autonomy in everyday ubicomp systems , 2014, UbiComp Adjunct.

[10]  Joanna Bryson,et al.  Standardizing Ethical Design for Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems , 2017, Computer.

[11]  Peter Tolmie,et al.  The practical politics of sharing personal data , 2018, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[12]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Playing the Legal Card: Using Ideation Cards to Raise Data Protection Issues within the Design Process , 2015, CHI.

[13]  R. Ericson,et al.  The surveillant assemblage. , 2000, The British journal of sociology.

[14]  Marina Jirotka,et al.  Towards a closer dialogue between policy and practice: responsible design in HCI , 2014, CHI.

[15]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Domestic Routines and Design for the Home , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[16]  Lachlan Urquhart,et al.  Ethical dimensions of user centric regulation , 2017, CSOC.

[17]  Jameson Wetmore What Can We Learn About Vacuum Cleaners from Vampires?: Far More Than You May Think , 2018, IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine.

[18]  Eran Toch,et al.  Privacy by designers: software developers’ privacy mindset , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[19]  Michael Veale,et al.  Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For , 2017 .

[20]  Chris Holder,et al.  Robotics and law: Key legal and regulatory implications of the robotics age (Part I of II) , 2016, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[21]  Greg Byrd,et al.  The Internet of Everything , 2017, Computer.

[22]  B. Shneiderman Human values and the future of technology: a declaration of empowerment , 1990, CQL '90.

[23]  P. Verbeek,et al.  Materializing Morality , 2006 .

[24]  John P. Sullins Robots, Love, and Sex: The Ethics of Building a Love Machine , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing.

[25]  C. Bartneck,et al.  A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction , 2004, RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759).

[26]  M. Coeckelbergh Can we trust robots? , 2011, Ethics and Information Technology.

[27]  Sadie Creese,et al.  Privacy is the Boring Bit: User Perceptions and Behaviour in the Internet-of-Things , 2017, 2017 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST).

[28]  Alan Borning,et al.  A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods , 2018, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[29]  Ugo Pagallo,et al.  Robots in the cloud with privacy: A new threat to data protection? , 2013, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[30]  N. Sharkey,et al.  Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly , 2012, Ethics and Information Technology.

[31]  Susan Wyche,et al.  Values as lived experience: evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery , 2009, CHI.

[32]  Burkhard Schafer,et al.  “I spy, with my little sensor”: fair data handling practices for robots between privacy, copyright and security , 2017, Connect. Sci..

[33]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Privacy in Context , 2001, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[34]  Charlie Wilson,et al.  Smart homes and their users: a systematic analysis and key challenges , 2014, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[35]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  The Robotics Primer , 2007 .

[36]  Sanna Leppënen,et al.  Daily Routines and Means of Communication in a Smart Home , 2003 .

[37]  Toyoaki Nishida,et al.  User perceptions of anthropomorphic robots as monitoring devices , 2015, AI & SOCIETY.

[38]  Maki K. Habib,et al.  Applied ontologies and standards for service robots , 2013, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[39]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human–Robot Interaction , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[40]  Tom Rodden,et al.  New directions in information technology law: learning from human–computer interaction , 2017 .

[41]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Principles of robotics: regulating robots in the real world , 2017, Connect. Sci..

[42]  Aimee van Wynsberghe,et al.  A method for integrating ethics into the design of robots , 2013, Ind. Robot.

[43]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Reflecting human values in the digital age , 2009, CACM.

[44]  Seongcheol Kim,et al.  How and what to study about IoT: Research trends and future directions from the perspective of social science , 2017 .

[45]  M. Steen Tensions in human-centred design , 2011 .

[46]  K. Darling Extending Legal Protection to Social Robots: The Effects of Anthropomorphism, Empathy, and Violent Behavior Towards Robotic Objects , 2012 .

[47]  Stuart Reeves,et al.  Envisioning ubiquitous computing , 2012, CHI.

[48]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Privacy in Context - Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life , 2009 .

[49]  Peter Tolmie,et al.  Doing Design Ethnography , 2012, Human–Computer Interaction Series.

[50]  Andy Crabtree,et al.  Demonstrably Doing Accountability in the Internet of Things , 2018, Int. J. Law Inf. Technol..

[51]  M. Flanagan,et al.  Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice , 2008 .

[52]  M. Ryan Calo,et al.  Robots and Privacy , 2010 .

[53]  Jason Millar,et al.  Blind visionaries: A case for broadening engineers’ ethical duties , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society.

[54]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Third-wave HCI, 10 years later---participation and sharing , 2015, Interactions.

[55]  Peter Tolmie,et al.  Living with interpersonal data: Observability and accountability in the age of pervasive ICT , 2018, New Media Soc..

[56]  R. V. Schomberg Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2011 .

[57]  Aimee van Wynsberghe,et al.  Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design , 2013, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[58]  Jeroen van den Hoven,et al.  ICT and Value Sensitive Design , 2006, The Information Society.