Drone in flight. Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Over the last couple of years, we have seen an increase in state regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). A recent report published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) titled “A Guide to State Laws Impacting UAS/UAV Operations” identifies the restriction of operations near critical infrastructure among the leading trends in state regulation of UAS. Notwithstanding the emergence of state regulation in this field, the enactment of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act, 2016 (the “Act”), indicates that Congress intends to vest the authority to protect critical infrastructure from UAS with the FAA. In light of this development, states that have enacted laws or are considering regulating in this field, should consult with the FAA in order to promote a unified national framework that addresses local concerns.

States that have enacted legislation restricting UAS operations near critical infrastructure include Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee. The approaches to the restrictions, as well as the definitions of critical infrastructure, vary among the jurisdictions.  Oregon’s law generally prohibits intentionally or knowingly engaging in UAS operations over critical infrastructure at or below 400 feet AGL It also prohibits allowing a UAS to make contact with critical infrastructure. There are various exceptions from the general overflight restriction, including for operations conducted by: a public body, the federal government, a law enforcement agency, the owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility, and for commercial operations conducted in compliance with FAA authorization.

Oklahoma’s law carries similar restrictions and exceptions as Oregon with minor variances, and additionally, prohibits allowing a UAS to come close enough to critical infrastructure to cause a disturbance. Oklahoma also creates civil liability for damage to property, the environment, and human health. Louisiana takes a different approach, prohibiting UAS flight near “targeted facilities” for purposes of surveillance or gathering evidence. Targeted facilities include schools and correctional institutions. And Tennessee prohibits the operation of UAS within 250 feet of the perimeter of critical infrastructure facilities for purposes of surveillance, collection of evidence, or capturing photos or video recordings.  As these examples indicate, there is discrepancy in the approaches adopted by states to protect critical infrastructure from UAS.

In the interest of promoting compliance and efficient management of airspace, a uniform national framework implemented by the FAA in accordance with Section 2209 of the Act should be used to displace state regulation of UAS operations near critical infrastructure.

Section 2209 directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a process to enable applicants to petition the FAA Administrator to “prohibit or restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close proximity to a fixed site facility.” Section 2209 outlines the following criteria that the FAA may consider in determining whether to grant or deny an application for designation of a fixed site facility: (i) aviation safety, (ii) protection of persons and property on the ground, (iii) national security, or (iv) homeland security.  For an analysis of Section 2209, please see my previous post entitled “Protecting Infrastructure and Innovation under Section 2209”.

In the coming months, as the FAA establishes a process for designating fixed site facilities, states that have enacted regulations concerning UAS operations near critical infrastructure should review Section 2209 and consult with the FAA.

“Robots and Society” panel discussion during European Robotics Week 2015. #ERW2015

A mouthwatering array of over 750 events has been taking place throughout Europe this week as the continent celebrates Robotics Week 2015. The festivities began with an eye-opening debate on “Robots and Society” in the UK city of Bristol on Tuesday, with experts versed in strategy, business, academia, law and policy. But, for many, the star of the show was Nao, in his guise as robot avatar.

The event was organised by euRobotics AISBL, which represents robotics stakeholders in Europe, and by Bristol Robotics Laboratory (BRL), one of the largest facilities of its kind in Europe. “We’re moving into a future where devices that interact with us are going to be part of our everyday experience,” said BRL’s director, Chris Melhuish, setting the scene.

The concern in Europe is that the continent should remain the number one robotics producer worldwide, said politician Mady Delvaux, who heads a European working group on robotics working on concrete proposals to steer European Union policy. The group is expected to issue a report in May next year.

But for the technology to reach its full potential, she told the audience, public acceptance and education are key. Investment is necessary to achieve these aims and encourage innovation in the region, she said, noting that EU nations benefit from SPARC, the largest civilian robotics programme in the world.

Delvaux was followed by a taste of what’s to come in the future: robot avatars. Part of an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) project, Being There focuses on robots and humans in public spaces. The project team is led by BRL’s Paul Bremner who, at a recent TEDx, presented the first talk using a tele-operated humanoid robot that replicates the movements of its human operator, showcasing the benefits of robotic avatars. The Bristol audience was able to see the experiment replicated with Nao.

Then came the main business of the evening — two panel discussions focussing on aspects underpinning the role of robots in society, the first focussing on economic considerations and the second on ethical implications.

Economics — The first panel featured Mike Aldred of Dyson’s Robotics unit, local council leader Amanda Deeks, London School of Economics professor Alan Manning, euRobotics road-mapping expert David Bisset, Phil Williams of the UK’s Knowledge Transfer Network, robolaw expert Andrea Bertolini, Technical Director of OC Robotics Andrew Graham, and Renaud Champion of Robolution Capital.

To put the enabling potential of robotic technologies into perspective, Amanda Deeks provided the audience with some eye-opening statistics. Over 60% of council work is in social care, she said, and as people live longer they need more and more help. The vast majority of adults live out a substantial part of their lives with some sort of disability. In the case of women, that’s an average of 18 years. For men, it’s 14 years, but only because they die earlier.

The KTN’s Phil Williams added some further figures to the mix, showing how much value many estimates placed on the robotics market: ranging from 15.5 billion euros to $25 billion, the widely differing figures had only one thing in common: they were huge. The question, as he sees it, is: why is the UK not taking more advantage of this?

Although the benefits of robotic technologies are demonstrable, the panel was keen to deal with the thorny question of robots replacing human jobs. In response to scaremongering reports, the LSE’s Alan Manning pointed out that, historically, everybody has ultimately benefited from past technological advances.

Issues of privacy (when it comes to data) and public perception were also touched on by the panel, particularly self-driving cars — a technological advance the UK is particularly keen to get behind. However, a recent survey by the UK’s Transport Systems Catapult, suggests that only 39% of UK citizens would allow themselves to be driven by an autonomous vehicle. The audience show of hands was roughly in accordance with this figure.

As with much else, the answer to this, in David Bisset’s opinion, is education. “Robots in research labs need to get out,” he said. “The problem with that is regulation and testing them. There are a stream of regulatory and ethical issues.”

Ethics — Ethical issues were at the heart of the second panel discussion, together with education. The panel featured robot ethics research specialists Alan Winfield of BRL and Fiorella Operto of the Genoa’s School of Robotics in Italy, as well as lawyer Andrea Bertolini of the Scuola Superiore, S. Anna in Pisa, Italy, Nikos Pronios from Innovate UK and David Bisset who was also on the prior panel.

Trust issues are at the core of the importance of robot ethics, said Alan Winfield. We have to define what kind of robot we don’t want in our lives. It’s also the start of the legislative process. It begins with ethics, which develop into standards and continue through to legislation. He urged the audience to look at BS8611 — the world’s first standard on robot ethics.

However, robots cannot be more ethical than humans. The ethics have to be predetermined by us and there has to collaboration with lawyers and ethicists, he said.

The panel were in accord that there will undoubtedly eventually be an accident with an autonomous vehicle or other robot, and the idea of a trusted robot commission that investigates accidents was put forward. Only through having a transparent process will we overcome the trauma of that first accident.

The importance of design in terms of interaction, to facilitate the right interfaces and experiences, was pointed out by David Bisset, who also advocated for lifelong education. “To be trained for second career in midlife needs to be a right,” he said. “There needs to be a sea change.”

EuRobotics acting President Uwe Haass provided further evidence for this. He told the audience about a scheme for giving educational robot kits to 45-year-old women returning to work after having had their children. It was very effective in helping these women develop a great sense of esteem, he said.

But learning about robots also holds great benefits early on in life, said Fiorello Operto. “Education in robotics is the best way to teach STEM.”

The audience had a great many questions, for instance: should you develop a robot that decides its own ethics? The panel was doubtful that this was advisable, or even likely, but it should be a public decision in any case. In a similar vein, another member of the audience wanted to know whether we should be able to design the ethics of our own car.

At this point the debate turned to data and privacy considerations that are likely to become commonplace with self driving vehicles. Putting this into perspective, David Bisset said that he believed that the larger ethical problems will arise from the data accruing from elderly care robots rather than from cars.

Echoing an earlier statement from Mike Aldred that the real benefit comes when things join up. “In robotics,” said Bisset, “ethics, law, engineering and design all need to interact together.”

Link to audio file (33:53)

What does it mean to have giants like Google, Apple and Amazon investing in robotics? Since last December, Google alone has acquired a handful of companies in robotics, home automation and artificial intelligence. This can be pretty exciting for robotics. But what exactly is the internet giant planning to do with this technology? Is there something we should be worried about? If there is, what can we do about it?

Experts have been actively talking about this in the media, including through Robohub’s recent focus series on Big Deals in Robotics.

In today’s episode, AJung Moon talks with Avner Levin, a privacy and cybercrime expert, about Google’s recent acquisition of companies. Levin sheds light on why we should be concerned about the recent series of acquisitions by the big companies from privacy and cybercrime perspective. He also discusses whether the existing privacy policies are ready to handle what may lie shortly ahead of us in the future — the future of the Internet of Things, or perhaps Google-branded robots.

Avner Levin
Avner Levin is the Chair of the Law & Business Department, as well as the Director of the Privacy and Cyber Crime Institute at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. His research interest is in regulation and protection of privacy with respect to technology within Canada and worldwide. In the interview, he advocates for more discussion of privacy issues to take place, not just within the companies that (do/will) hold our data, but by governing bodies.

Links:

• Download mp3 (15.5MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Avner Levin’s Website

 

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Google’s robot and artificial intelligence acquisitions are anything but scary
• Will companies like Google and Amazon usher in a new era for robotics?
• The robots behind your Internet shopping addiction: How your wallet is driving retail automation
• What do Google, Amazon, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and all the airlines and car companies want?

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

 

In particular, Anderson promoted one idea that deserves the attention of the drone industry: that by operating in a legal “grey area” (read: deliberately violating regulations that are perceived as unreasonable and unenforceable) drone enthusiasts will force regulatory movement, and this is a good thing. Anderson gave two examples of circumstances that challenge current regulations: Lego Mindstorms being classified by regulators as a cruise missile guidance system (and hence violating export controls), and flying drones in contravention to the FAA regulations governing the use of unmanned aircraft.

Technologists in general (and Silicon Valley in particular) take a dim view of regulations promulgated under the old order (e.g. Lyft, Uber, AirBnB), and it’s true that some aspects of the FAA regulations are out-of-date and no longer reasonable. But while I’m not completely outraged when technologists upend the status quo to make something new (and improved), this attitude works better in industries that don’t involve fast-flying heavy objects.

Let’s remember that the FAA’s primary goal is to keep people from getting killed by aircraft. When it comes to aircraft regulation – manned or unmanned – people on the ground are the main beneficiaries. We are not talking about regulating a relatively low-risk activity (like renting your room out with AirBnB); we are talking about regulating heavy objects hurtling over the heads of people who haven’t consented to be part of the experiment.

Our society rightly asks the government to ensure that activities that impose risk on others — especially those who did not consent — be minimized. We need to update our regulations, but aircraft operators need to respect the letter and spirit of the law as it stands.  What standards do we have if not the law? If we follow the path of breaking all the rules, someone is going to accidentally kill a sympathetic bystander. Beyond the personal tragedy this will create, such an accident will set back our industry and the benefits we can provide to society by a decade.

In Afghanistan, one of my planes almost smacked into a helicopter, but it was the helicopter – not the drone –  that had come, without clearance or radio calls, into an active artillery firing ROZ (restricted operating zone: this is an airspace control measure that makes sure that aircraft don’t run into artillery fire).  Similarly, the first full-sized drone and manned aircraft collision involved a C-130 violating airspace control measures around an airfield.

Pilots are not infallible and often break the rules. The best drone operators have a different safety culture: one where there is proper approval for everything, because every move will be recorded and second guessed. Military drone safety culture is a great example of this approach. I hope this culture will permeate the civilian unmanned aircraft community as well.

Although breaking the rules might move us toward our unmanned enabled future a little bit faster, this is an incredibly dangerous path for our industry and our bystanders.  The closing thought of VLAB Drones was that unmanned aircraft will eventually make the airspace safer for all users.  The panel wondered if this was hyperbole, but it is inevitable when drones have a strong safety culture. Conversely, as long as we are the irresponsible jerks of the air, safety conscious regulators like the FAA will be unsupportive of us flying.  When we, as a civilian unmanned aircraft industry, can be counted on as strong safety partner, and when people in general and commercial aviation are learning safety lessons from us, there will be no more foot dragging. We will get our airspace and the drone revolution will finally be here.

In the meantime: seriously, don’t do anything that could kill anyone, please. Especially if it is illegal. You will ruin it for the rest of us.

Link to audio file (22:47)

In this episode, we talk with Kate Darling from the MIT Media Lab, about giving rights to social robots. She tells us about a recent Pleo torture session she organized at the LIFT conference and the class she taught at Harvard Law School on “Robot Rights”.

Kate Darling
Kate Darling is an Intellectual Property Research Specialist at the MIT Media Lab. She recently wrote a paper on “Extending Legal Rights to Social Robots” where she asks if we should consider protecting robots that connect with us on a social level. In her paper, she says:

Assuming that our society wants to protect animals regardless of their capacities, because of our personal attachments to them, society may well also want to protect social robots regardless of their capacities.

To test our attachment to robot companions, Darling organized a workshop at LIFT which involved torturing and “killing” Pleo dinosaurs.

The task ended up being surprisingly difficult for the participants who had spent time bonding with the robots. In the end, only one Pleo was killed.

Darling asks if mistreating a social robot could be a precursor sign of abusive personality, and if certain limits should be set on what people should and shouldn’t be doing with robots. She tells us about the course she co-taught with Professor Lawrence Lessig at Harvard Law School on “Robot Rights”, and the questions legal experts should be tackling in the realm of robotics.

Kate Darling is also a Ph.D. candidate in the field of Intellectual Property and Law & Economics at the ETHZ in Switzerland and holds a law degree (B.A./J.D. equivalent) from the University of Basel, where she graduated with honors in 2008. Her research interests have previously revolved around innovation policy and the economic analysis of copyright and patent law. She gave a related talk at LIFT this year entitled “Innovation Drivers: XXX”.

Links:

• Download mp3 (14.7MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Kate Darling’s Website
• Kate Darling’s Twitter

The panel includes:
Marilyn Dondero Loop – Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee
Bruce Breslow – Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Troy Dillard – Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
David Estrada – Legal Director, Google
Bryant Walker Smith (Moderator)- Resident Fellow, Center for Internet and Society

You can read more on the Stanford CIS blog.