European regulatory framework for person carrier robots

The aim of this paper is to establish the grounds for a future regulatory framework for Person Carrier Robots, which includes legal and ethical aspects. Current industrial standards focus on physical human–robot interaction, i.e. on the prevention of harm. Current robot technology nonetheless challenges other aspects in the legal domain. The main issues comprise privacy, data protection, liability, autonomy, dignity, and ethics. The paper first discusses the need to take into account other interdisciplinary aspects of robot technology to offer complete legal coverage to citizens. As the European Union starts using impact assessment methodology for completing new technologies regulations, a new methodology based on it to approach the insertion of personal care robots will be discussed. Then, after framing the discussion with a use case, analysis of the involved legal challenges will be conducted. Some concrete scenarios will contribute to easing the explanatory analysis.

[1]  Mark Coeckelbergh,et al.  Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration , 2010, Ethics and Information Technology.

[2]  Bruce A. MacDonald,et al.  The Role of Healthcare Robots for Older People at Home: A Review , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[3]  Paulius Čerka,et al.  Liability for damages caused by artificial intelligence , 2015, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

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

[5]  Adriana Tapus,et al.  Stress Game: The Role of Motivational Robotic Assistance in Reducing User’s Task Stress , 2015, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[6]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  May I help you? - Design of Human-like Polite Approaching Behavior- , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[7]  Heather Draper,et al.  Robot carers, ethics, and older people , 2014, Ethics and Information Technology.

[8]  Norihiro Hagita,et al.  Effectiveness of Social Behaviors for Autonomous Wheelchair Robot to Support Elderly People in Japan , 2015, PloS one.

[9]  Gurvinder S. Virk,et al.  ISO 13482 - The new safety standard for personal care robots , 2014, ISR 2014.

[10]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Towards Safe and Trustworthy Social Robots: Ethical Challenges and Practical Issues , 2015, ICSR.

[11]  Akio Yamamoto,et al.  Neurological and Robot-Controlled Induction of an Apparition , 2014, Current Biology.

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

[13]  Susanne Frennert,et al.  Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People , 2014, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[14]  Sunil Kumar Agrawal,et al.  Babies driving robots: self-generated mobility in very young infants , 2008, Intell. Serv. Robotics.

[15]  Michael Burmester,et al.  Semi-Autonomous Domestic Service Robots: Evaluation of a User Interface for Remote Manipulation and Navigation With Focus on Effects of Stereoscopic Display , 2014, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[16]  Tiago Ildefonso,et al.  Notas leitura / Recensão crítica , 2013 .

[17]  R Lee Kirby,et al.  Fatal Wheelchair-related Accidents in the United States , 1990, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[18]  Eduard Fosch-Villaronga Creation of a Care Robot Impact Assessment , 2015 .

[19]  A. Grzeszczuk,et al.  Auditing HIV Testing Rates across Europe: Results from the HIDES 2 Study , 2015, PloS one.

[20]  Christopher Kuner,et al.  Risk management in data protection , 2015 .

[21]  G. Parra,et al.  Mayer Schönberger, Viktor; Cukier, Kenneth. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. London: John Murray, 2013 , 2015 .

[22]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  BEHAVE-II: The Revised Set of Measures to Assess Users’ Attitudinal and Behavioral Responses to a Social Robot , 2013, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[23]  Thomas Hellström,et al.  On the moral responsibility of military robots , 2013, Ethics and Information Technology.

[24]  Bert-Jaap Koops,et al.  Robotic Technologies and Fundamental Rights: Robotics Challenging the European Constitutional Framework , 2013, Int. J. Technoethics.

[25]  Rüdiger Dillmann,et al.  Learning Robot Behaviour and Skills Based on Human Demonstration and Advice: The Machine Learning Paradigm , 2000 .

[26]  Ian M. Mitchell,et al.  A risk assessment infrastructure for powered wheelchair motion commands without full sensor coverage , 2014, 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[27]  Shuichi Nishio,et al.  Cloud networked robotics , 2012, IEEE Network.

[28]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Social Roles and Baseline Proxemic Preferences for a Domestic Service Robot , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[29]  Migle Laukyte Artificial Agents: Some Consequences of a Few Capacities , 2014, Robophilosophy.

[30]  Kenneth W. Abbott,et al.  Hard and Soft Law in International Governance , 2000, International Organization.

[31]  Rachid Alami,et al.  Plan-Based Control of Joint Human-Robot Activities , 2010, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.

[32]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  Towards Robust Task Execution for Domestic Service Robots , 2014, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[33]  Riva Krut,et al.  ISO 14001: A Missed Opportunity for Sustainable Global Industrial Development , 1998 .

[34]  Gregor Wolbring,et al.  Social Robots: Views of Staff of a Disability Service Organization , 2014, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[35]  Steffen Steinert,et al.  The Five Robots—A Taxonomy for Roboethics , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[36]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  Sacrifice One For the Good of Many? People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[37]  Eduard Fosch Villaronga,et al.  ISO 13482:2014 and Its Confusing Categories. Building a Bridge Between Law and Robotics , 2016 .

[38]  David Wright,et al.  Constructing a surveillance impact assessment , 2012, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[39]  A. Frank,et al.  Young people's experiences using electric powered indoor – outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): Potential for enhancing users' development? , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation.

[40]  Luís Paulo Reis,et al.  Adapted Control Methods for Cerebral Palsy Users of an Intelligent Wheelchair , 2015, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[41]  Deborah G. Johnson Technology with No Human Responsibility? , 2015 .

[42]  Christian Laugier,et al.  From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey , 2014, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[43]  S. Karon,et al.  Nursing home staffing and its relationship to deficiencies. , 2000, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[44]  Peter Asaro,et al.  The Liability Problem for Autonomous Artificial Agents , 2016, AAAI Spring Symposia.

[45]  Ryan Calo Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw , 2014 .

[46]  Seul Jung,et al.  Guidance control of a wheeled mobile robot with human interaction based on force control , 2010 .

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

[48]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  A model of empathy to shape trolley problem moral judgements , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII).

[49]  H. Hertz,et al.  Segway® related injuries in Vienna: report from the Lorenz Böhler Trauma Centre , 2016, European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery.