(Pictured: You see kids, when two self-driving vehicles fall in love they make robot-babies…. and those robot-babies grow up to become our FUTURE ROBOT OVERLORDS. But hey, Tesla cars are cool!)

When someone breaks a law, they generally get in trouble – that’s just the way the world work. Systems of law have been managing the conduct of nations and their citizens as long as civilizations have been in place.  With the technology renaissance of the 21^st century, a new form of life has been participating in society, and just like humans some of them have begun to break laws.  We are talking about – of course – robots.

In 2015, a self-driving car created by Google was operating in the area around the company’s headquarters.  The driverless vehicle had been on a road near ‘the company campus’ when it ended up getting pulled over – for going 10 miles an hour below the speed limit!  Basically, it had been violating traffic laws by holding up traffic without a good reason.

News outlets report that the officer after discovering that there was no one driving the car, contacted the operators responsible for programming the vehicle. The article also reports that several cars in the Google self-driving fleet have been in accidents, although none of them have been reported to be the self-driving car’s fault.  The incident comes on the heels of many people questioning the safety of self-driving vehicles.

For many years now, electric car manufacturer Tesla has touted its self-driving initiative and how much safer it is than actually driving.  Tesla’s critics are still skeptical of the company’s self-driving vehicles’ capacity to be safe at all, pointing to a National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB) investigation of a 2018 fatal accident that involved a self-driving Tesla.  In that incident, the car’s driver life being lost (instead of steering the car, the ‘driver’ had handed control over to the vehicle’s self-driving computer when the accident took place). The NTSB  report found that the Tesla vehicle had actually acted in a way meant to try the driver, however the vehicle still ended up crashing.   Many skeptics of self-driving vehicles point to that crash in particular as a reason that driverless cars and trucks should not be allowed on the roadways.

Instances like the fatal Tesla crash and the slow self-driving  Google car provide examples of a significant issue that goes beyond just general safety – one that will become more relevant as technology continues to evolve:

So, when a robot or AI commits a crime that puts humans or other lives in danger, who is responsible in a legal sense?

Technology has and will continue to develop at a rate that the law can’t keep up with. If there are robots used to make work easier in a factory for example, who is responsible if a ‘thinking’ machine harms a human worker in a workplace accident –  the programmer, the actual ‘code’ of the machine, the company, or someone (or something) else entirely?  As companies, manufacturers, and even governments are beginning to make the push for automated processes like self-driving vehicles that include the use of Robots, AI, and other ‘driverless’ technologies, we will all begin to be faced with these questions.

Questions:

1: Who should be held civilly and/or criminally accountable when a robot is involved in  crime?  Explain your choice(s)

2: What laws should be put in place to ensure that the right entities (people / companies / robots) are held accountable for Artificial Intelligence related problems, and how will they help prevent or address those problems?

3: What are some things that a robot could do to break a law? 

4: Should a person who built a robot that commits a crime, be charged to the same level as contributing to the crime or aiding in it? Explain why you think they should or should not.

Be sure to explain the thinking behind your answers, and for more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here: 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/13/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over-driving-too-slowly

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/02/13/ntsb-releases-report-on-2018-fatal-silicon-valley-tesla-autopilot-crash/#395bd32842a8

Contributed By: Joseph Motta

A quick note for the olds: Swatting is when emergency services (like 911) are called by someone who hides their identity and falsely claims an incident that requires an immediate and armed response from law enforcement is taking place at an address.  Swatting is a way to harass – and possibly harm – an intended victim by fraudulently provoking a police raid at their location.

During Spring 2018 in Parkland, Florida, local police responded to a call that claimed Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg was being held hostage.  The caller claimed Hogg and his family were being held hostage by someone armed with an AR-15. Police showed up to his house “prepared for a shootout with an armed menace”.  Shortly after arriving at the scene, the responding officers discovered that not only had the caller been lying, but that Hogg was actually out of town at the time.

On social media Hogg downplayed the incident, describing it a poorly-thought-out prank.  Hogg had a reason for playing it cool though – after surviving the slaughter at his school on Valentine’s Day in 2018, he’s been a target for harassment from gun rights activist and conspiracy theorists.  By downplaying the swatting incident and acting like it’s no big deal, Hogg was communicating to swatters that they are wasting their time trying to provoke fear or anguish in him.

Despite how Hogg reacted to the incident publically, swatting is an extremely dangerous act that needs to be taken seriously.  It wastes police resources that might be needed somewhere where a real emergency is taking place, and the so-called prank can even result in death.

In December 2017, a 28 year old was killed by police that were responding to an emergency call.  In a call to 911, a swatter claimed that a man had killed his father and was holding the rest of his family hostage in their home.   When a young man opened the door at the house that was being ‘swatted’, police shot him thinking he was the gunman that had been reported.  He died shortly after that.  Given that the December 2017 swatting death was national news at the time, the person who attempted to swat David Hogg just a few month later knew there was a chance Hogg (or a member of his family) could have been inadvertently shot or injured by police.

————————–
Questions:

1) Though the specific definition changes by jurisdiction, generally speaking ‘attempted murder’ is when someone has intent to carry out a murder or takes a substantial step towards committing a murder.  Considering the circumstances of the attempted swatting of David Hogg, do you believe the swatter – if he or she were ever identified – could be convicted of attempted murder?  Why or why not?  What other charges might a person face if they were identified as being a person behind a swatting call to police?

Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here::
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/us/hogg-family-home-swatting-incident-trnd/index.html

Contributed by- J. Plummer

In February 2017, reports were circulating that Russia was considering sending Edward Snowden back to the US “as a gift for President Donald Trump” as reported by NBC.  At the time, NBC cited an unnamed senior US official who has reviewed intelligence on the matter.

Edward Snowden has lived in Russia since 2013 and recently launched a campaign with his legal team to get him pardoned. Snowden still faces being charged with leaking classified information and treason for his pivotal role in the months-long releases of information about America’s digital surveillance programs, should he return to the United States.

In April 2017 however, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said publicly that Edward Snowden can stay in Russia until he decides to leave for himself.  When asked, Zakharova did not clarify on if Russia would consider extraditing Snowden to the U.S. at a later point in time.

This post is about more than just an update to a news story about privacy law and policy.  The difference in tone, content, and conclusion (or lack thereof) between the stories should lead readers to question the reliability of news stories that speculate.  In an age where people of all political leanings and affiliations make claims of fake news, we encourage the students we connect with to consume all media – no matter the source – with critical eyes.

————————–
Questions:

1) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s Leaks were a good or bad thing? 

2) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s should or should not be punished for leaking the information that he did?

3) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s should or should not be pardoned? 

Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:

http://www.newsweek.com/snowden-will-decide-himself-if-he-leaves-russia-591645

https://www.cnet.com/news/russia-mulls-returning-snowden-to-us-report-says/#ftag=CAD590a51e

A 2,000-year-old terracotta warrior from China had one of its thumbs stolen while in an American museum. The suspected thief was caught on camera sneaking into the warrior’s exhibit, taking a selfie with the statue, and then breaking off its thumb.  The camera then caught him pocketing the terracotta thumb and taking it.

Not important but also interesting:  the thief burgled the museum during an ugly0-sweater party being held there!

On the way home from the party, a suspect named Michael Rohana bragged to his friends about successfully stealing part of a warrior. A month later the FBI went to his house and questioned him which lead to the return of the missing thumb. As a result he was charged with multiple crimes including “concealment of an object of cultural heritage stolen from a museum” (meaning that he knew the thumb was stolen from the museum yet he kept it like it was his own belonging.)

The warrior statues were discovered by a Chinese farmer in 1974 but originally date all the way back to 209 BC.  Sculptures like the one that had its thumb stolen were created in order to protect the tomb of China’s first emperor. At the time of the theft, the statue was worth $4.5 million. Additionally China has to send two experts to the United States to try and repair the thumb.

Chinese officials and citizens are upset at both the museum and the United States for the lack of security for the sculptures and for failing to protect the warrior from harm. Users of China’s Facebook-like service Weibo left critical comments about the incident, including one user who noted that the warriors “are kept far away from the public” (in China) and asked “How come the sculptures in Philadelphia are not displayed inside glass cases?”

The man – Michael Rohana – made a quick decision to mess with the terracotta warrior’s display to try and impress his friends.  Now he has to face consequences starting with going to court, though he’s likely to face much worse than that!

————————–
Questions:

1) Given the fact that the damaged item was originally worth $4.5 million and that the thumb portion of it was taken illegally, what are the lowest criminal charges or consequences the suspect can face (if they were charged in Nevada)?

2) The artifact was being borrowed while it was damaged.  If China decides to take action against the US, what court would the case be taken to (China’s? American Federal Court? An American State Court?)  and what charges could the US government face, if any?  If not the government, who would end up in court and why would it be a criminal or civil case (pick one or the other and explain why you chose that way)? 

3) Everyone know of someone (maybe even themselves) who’ve just done what the thumb-thief did: failed to think about the consequences and just quickly acted on an impulse.  What is something you saw – or even did – that could have resulted in a lot of big trouble all because you or that person you saw just didn’t stop to think, and then act?  What could the consequences have been?

Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/us/terracotta-warrior-thumb/index.html

Contributed by  – J. Plummer

China’s government has begun to implement a system that ranks its population with a score based on their ‘social credit’.

The Chinese social credit score is similar to a financial credit score – it moves up or down depending on the behavior of the person being scored. The program is already being piloted for millions of Chinese citizens, and China’s government hopes the system will be in place for all of its citizens by 2020.  The program was first announced in 2014.  According to a government document, the system is meant to support the national ideal that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful.”

Any number of actions can impact a person’s social credit score in China’s program like trying to ride a train without a ticket, smoking in a non-smoking area, lingering in public spaces without explanation.  Those are all reasons someone’s social score might be lowered, and they may seem reasonable – but there are other reasons that seem more troubling.

Whether someone buys unnecessary items, the amount of time they spend playing video games, what they post on social media, and if they spread what the government deems to be fake news are also sources of social score point reductions.

If you’re not already familiar with the Chinese Government’s definition of ‘fake news’, Google ‘China Government Tiananmen Square State News’, find a reliable source to learn from, and read an article or two about it.  Then, think about their social scoring system again. (Spoiler Alert: If the Chinese government doesn’t like a story, they just delete it and can arrest the person who wrote it)

Refusing military service can also have a negative effect on your score.

If someone happens to get a bad social credit score, they could face barriers such as restricted travel. Meaning if your score is low enough you could be prevented from buying domestic flight tickets and business-class train tickets. You could also be barred from enrolling in higher education, unable to continue your studies and may not be able to enroll your kids in private schools.

Think about that: If you’re a straight A student that plays a lot of video games, you could be barred from enrolling in higher education because of how much you enjoy gaming – despite your good grades!

Having a good social credit score can also provide rewards like speeding up travel applications, receiving discounts on energy bills and even getting more matches on dating websites! Some citizens in China claim that the system has already made people’s behaviors improve.

————————–
Questions:

1)  If a system like China’s ‘social credit score’ program were to be implemented in America by the US Government, how would the program violate or not violate American citizen’s constitutional rights?  

2) Constitutional rights aside, why would you want to live or not live in a country with a social scoring system?  

3)  If you were forced to live in a country with a social scoring system, what protections would you put in place to make sure everyone was treated fairly by the system?  For example: If someone proposed points should be awarded to people that participating in sports, would that be fair to a quadriplegic? Should quadriplegics get bonus points? Is that fair for people that just don’t like sports?   This sounds challenging, but in the context of the questions above, pretend that somehow the system could be made to be fair: what are the first 3 steps you would take?

Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4 and here: www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit

Contributed by- J. Plummer

In some cases, leaks have changed the course of American history while shaping the nation’s laws. There are a number of statutes that criminalize leaking information, yet not all leaks are necessarily criminal.

Leaks in modern history that are certain to remain historically notable include those of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Shadow Brokers’ NSA Hacking tools data dump, and the early days of The Trump Presidential Administration.  Despite taking up significantly more air time in media outlets, the majority of leaks from the offices of President Trump remain unsubstantiated.  The leaks of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and the Shadow Brokers have had an immediate and lasting impact on American history.

In the case of Edward Snowden, we encourage students to read our book ‘The Government, Privacy, and You’ (free copies of which can be requested using the ‘OUR PROJECT’ section of our website – which you’re already on).  As of the publication date of this post, Mr. Snowden remains in Russia with the possibility of being charged with treason, espionage, and criminal release of classified information hanging over his head.

Chelsea Manning – who was recently released from prison following a presidential order of clemency issued by President Barack Obama in his last days in office – released information to WikiLeaks that had significant impacts on American foreign policy.  Most notably, Manning released a video of an airstrike in Afghanistan in which over 80 civilians were killed by US forces after the details of the operation had been held back from public release, and the release of diplomatic communications which (upon their release) resulted in many of the ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings of 2010-2012.

The Shadow Brokers was a hacker collective that released reports and files created by the NSA.  The information included a number of tools and exploits that could be used to monitor or control people’s personal electronic devices.  Following the Edward Snowden leaks (which revealed the US government had digitally programs that involved at least the possibility of domestic surveillance), the implication of the Shadow Brokers release was that the NSA had tools for spying not just on terror suspects but American citizens.

These are just a few examples of leaks that changed the history of America and the perception of the administrations in power at the time of their release.   Republican, Democrat, Independent, Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate – information leaks have impacted administrations and governments of all types throughout American history.

————————–
Questions:

1)  What is a government leak you’re already familiar with? If you don’t know one, research one and summarize it in 1 – 6 sentences:

2) Regarding that whistleblowing incident – who do you believe was ‘right’ in the situation, and what about what you know about that whistleblowing incident leads you to that conclusion?  

3) Whistleblowing is a  challenging subject for the people coming forward:  They might have legal protections to their job and their freedom, but how can they be expected to stay at a place where they betrayed the trust of the organization (even if the organization was doing something bad)?

4) Whistleblowing can also be a  challenging subject for people being reported on: What if the whistleblower is wrong and what the company/person was doing is allowed? If they fire the ‘whistleblower’ they can face major punishments (financial penalties) for firing the person (it’s called retaliation).  What can be done to prevent situations of false / improper whistleblowing? An example would be people posting videos of how fast food is made on Tick Tock.  If a company isn’t pretending the food is ‘natural and organic’, why should (or shouldn’t) their employees really be allowed to post videos of that process?   

Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-leaking-information-american-apple-pie-n724466?cid=public-rss_20170226