Robots are starting to break the law and nobody knows what to do about it

[poledriver]

ROBOTS ARE STARTING TO BREAK THE LAW AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

Maybe it’s a sign that robots are growing up, and thus hitting the rebellious stage.

The Random Darknet Shopper, an automated online shopping bot with a budget of $100 a week in Bitcoin, is programmed to do a very specific task: go to one particular marketplace on the Deep Web and make one random purchase a week with the provided allowance.

The purchases have all been compiled for an art show in Zurich, Switzerland titled The Darknet: From Memes to Onionland, which runs through January 11.

The concept would be all gravy if not for one thing: the programmers came home one day to find a shipment of 10 ecstasy pills, followed by an apparently very legit falsified Hungarian passport– developments which have left some observers of the bot’s blog a little uneasy.

If this bot was shipping to the U.S., asks Forbes contributor and University of Washington law professor contributor Ryan Calo, who would be legally responsible for purchasing the goodies? The coders? Or the bot itself?

In the U.S., Calo ponders, criminal law is statutory, meaning that the wording of the law itself would have to be taken into consideration.

“If, for instance, the law says a person may not knowingly purchase pirated merchandise or drugs, there is an argument that the artists did not violate the law,” he said.

“Whereas if the law says the person may not engage in this behavior recklessly, then the artists may well be found guilty, since they released the bot into an environment where they could be substantially certain some unlawful outcome would occur.”


Continued with comments -

http://fusion.net/story/35883/robot...the-law-and-nobody-knows-what-to-do-about-it/

 

[TouchN' Stuff Blvd]

I find this kind of awesome, but at the same time, why would the article mention how this may or may not be legal depending on how the law is worded? I mean, couldnt the author have done a little research instead of just state the possibilities?

Still, I think this is one of the the things art is awesome at - making people think about issues they would never have bothered or considered could have important implications otherwise.

TLDR: was drunk made me smile

 

[Smoky]

Art can open people up to other worlds they didn't know existed ...

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

It strikes me just now that one of the major sociological functions of art is to do or say otherwise punishable or taboo things with impunity. This is done ostensibly "for argument's sake", or just to test and show what reaction people have to it. The artist is granted at least a limited degree of exemption from social sanction, in exchange for relinquishing any demands for a response from their audience. This is the social contract implied and inherent in the dismissive but powerful statement, "It's just art."

Art is the big "SWIM", if you will. And this use of a robot is really taking "Someone Who Isn't Me" to a whole other level! I'm reminded of hipsters who say racist things with the thinnest perceptible hint of "just kidding" in their voices. If you do it "with irony", it doesn't count, right? Right??!

Because here's the thing: Forbidden deeds going unpunished rest heavily upon a bond of trust between the would-be rulebreaker and the enforcer(s) of the rule, that the would-be rulebreaker does not have it in him to really violate that rule, that is, violate that rule for personal gain or inherent gratification. When that trust wears thin, artistry and "irony" (used incorrectly in the hipster sense of the word) offer no defense, and there ceases to be any difference between doing something and meaning it, and doing that same thing and not meaning it. The question of how much of this trust there is, or ought to be there, is really the essence of the controversy in much, if not most, art labeled "controversial". For example, a famous actor who portrays wantonly violent gangsters very well on film loses, not gains, fandom, if it is discovered that he is indeed a violent gangster in his offscreen life. It behooves any artist whose art involves severed animal parts to prove that he is not a sadistic animal mutilator for kicks in his spare time. And in this same vein, I really hope for their sake that the artists who've designed this robot and are putting the results on display, have perpetually clean urine.

 

['medicine cabinet']

Yea I had an art exhibit that showed in Baltimore from 01 to 11 and it was all about the daily life of a strung out smack addict...turned out it was more of a biopic since i was the subject ha...yea in the sake of art can get away with all sorts of shit that would get anyone else cuffed.

I mean if they are using the bpt to buy random shit with bitcoins on the dark web how the hell wouldn't they end up with drugs and forged documents. I am interested in the passport tho lol I'd like to see it. And wouldn't it prob be a deal where you send a pic? Hpwd they get around that I wonder? Or maybe its blank.

 

[itsonlyme123]

A robot is instructed to make random purchases is not breaking the law, it's doing what it was told to do.

 

[limonov]

Im actually kinda dubious...the concept is sound and completely possible, but I don't believe a bot could buy a passport.

Why? Firstly a passport costs way more than the allotted money (unless they meant a photocopy) and secondly buying a passport involves a hell of a lot more information than buying drugs (which often only requires an address to be sent). How did the bot respond to the vendors inquiries for details?

Also, I totally understand the 'point' or'message'/'meaning' of the work, but at the same time it's very 'rahrahrah art world'. What I mean is it's really not as exciting as the artist makes out- if you crash a car into someone or if your dog attacks someone, even if you have no control over the car/dog (even if through no fault of your own), you are responsible for the outcome- beyond being in 'control' of possession (even something ethereal like code). Ownership comes with it implied legal responsibilities. It's clever and all that, but take anything some dipshit artist says with a grain of salt.

 

[blowjay]

Ownership comes with it implied legal responsibilities. It's clever and all that, but take anything some dipshit artist says with a grain of salt.

Lets take the art out of the picture and do it this way:

What about a robot that tells a robot that tells a robot?

If robot #1 was tasked with dispensing money to robot #2 (under specified conditions), and robot #2 was able to communicate with both robot #1+#3 ... then there is a situation where it is a bit more complicated.

Lets say #1 and #3 were programmed to never communicate together and we think of robot #1 as a means of finance (meaning the last one is not directly connected to the first one which only dispenses the money)

Robot #3 would be programmed to do something such as make an order to a random address gleaned from the internet but only could do so after communicating with robot #2 to get the funding.

Robot #3 would also be made to put a disclaimer that the purchase is only being sent to the address by a programmed robot as part of an experiment and that the recipient is not knowledgeable of what is being purchased. (this request could make it difficult to purchase some things I am sure, for fun though, lets say that whatever gets ordered ships out with this disclaimer)

Robot #2 is basically an ATM and cannot talk to #1 about the purchases of #3...

In this example, could robot #1 be guilty of doing any wrong doing? Robot #2?

Would the programmer of this still be at fault if the first robot is funded through a kick-starter campaign to send out random gifts to a random address?

If there are no intents of illegal activities but the above scenario plays out and some random person had the package opened, what would happen then?

It is a funny scenario, but at the same time I don't see how what I propose could cause legal harm to programmer or package receiver, if fully investigated.
Only the shipper is in the wrong as I see it. Would love more opinions on my scenario, sure its crazy but the robots/programs are limited in functionality.

 

['medicine cabinet']

Would be pretty funny if the artists kept the e pills and took them then replaced them with baby aspirin lol yes officer these are what came in the post.

 

[TheRapperGoneBad]

Would be pretty funny if the artists kept the e pills and took them then replaced them with baby aspirin lol yes officer these are what came in the post.

Fuckin dark net...
a huge waste of time
Super shitty
Definitely wouldn't recommend checkin it out at all..

;]

A robot to do your dirty work would be cool lots of ifee details bet iit'd rat you out

 

[Roger&Me]

“If, for instance, the law says a person may not knowingly purchase pirated merchandise or drugs, there is an argument that the artists did not violate the law,” he said.

pretty thin argument tbh. just about any prosecutor in the US worth their salt could secure an easy conviction in this case.

sometimes it's really funny how people think they can argue their way out of things on little technicalities. it doesn't work like that. the robot was acting on their behalf when it bought the drugs, and they ended up in possession of the drugs. they are guilty of drug possession in the eyes of the law. a prosecutor would argue that and almost certainly get a conviction.

if a case like this went to court in the US and the defendant was acquitted, i would literally be flabbergasted.