Privacy, due process and the computational turn: a parable and a first analysis

Abstract

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there were three families who each owned a robotic dog. The robotic dogs were a great source of entertainment for their owners: the family members enjoyed playing with them the same way as one would with a real dog. Next to their roles as loyal canine companions, the dogs were also supposed to patrol around the house of the families and protect them from ‘suspect types’,1 such as potential burglars, child molesters and any other unwelcome intruders. The eyes of these robotic dogs registered all the passers-by and stored their image and gait. Whenever a dog spotted a ‘suspect type’ around the family house it would bark, set off the alarm system, contact all family members and call the police. If the ‘suspect type’ continued to approach the house, the dog could set off tear gas. The instruction manual opened with:Congratulations! You have made a great choice. No real dog could ever provide the same level of security as your new robotic pet. No burglar can distract your robotic dog with a simple piece of sausage. The robotic dog will never waggle its tail at an unwelcome guest, because you instruct it exactly about who should be kept away from your family. Robo-dog has an extremely user-friendly interface: just talk to the dog as you would to a child. 2 And which real dog would be able to call the police if they spot a suspicious type? Precisely. But your robotic dog will.