Who is Responsible if A Robot Buys Illegal Drugs?

The incident described in this article is a situation of who takes responsibility for an algorithm’s actions. The algorithm in question is named the Random Darknet Shopper. The Darknet Shoppers purpose was to purchase an item from the darknet with 100 dollars that it was given every Wednesday and ship them to the designers of the robot. The robot purchased a couple of items and eventually ended up buying ecstasy pills this is where the question who takes responsibility for this algorithm comes in.

I think that doing something illegal for experimental purposes is absolutely an ethical decision. I think that Switzerland in this article is very open with how it describes artistic practices and leaves much grey area for confusion (am I allowed to make a painting from the blood of a child??). I think that the people that gave the algorithm the money to purchase things were doing an illegal act. If I tell an impressionable child to go into a dark alley with 100 dollars and pick me out something from the local drug dealers and criminals and bring it back, then I am responsible for what the child purchases. I had every intention of eventually purchasing something illegal even if the kid comes back with a bag of chips. I think in the US the purchasers of the drugs (the ones who gave the algorithm money) would have immediately been arrested and held liable for all actions of the system they used.

When I read that “a robot was arrested” I laughed and said out loud “they got the wrong guy” the algorithm was incapable of thinking and had no “Mens Rea” in purchasing the drugs, it could not be charged or prosecuted as it has no intention of committing wrongdoing as it has no judgement of right and wrong. The people who gave the algorithm money on the other hand did have mens rea and are able to be prosecuted on behalf of the algorithm. I think that this would be the appropriate action in this situation.

I think that the analogy drawn between dogs and robots in this article provides us with a very good framework for deciding who is responsible for algorithms that are used. In general, the algorithm or robot is the dog and the owner of the dog is the person who pays for it and takes care of it. The owner also takes responsibility for the dogs’ actions. I think with this framework that more appropriate legal actions would have been taken against those who gave the robot the money to buy the drugs. The analogy comparing owner and manufacturer of the electric drill is also a good analogy because it is almost never the fault of the hardware “guns don’t kill people, people kill people with guns” but if a gun misfires and kills the user then it is the responsibility of the manufacturer. In the situation of the darknet shopper I think that the manufacturer of the program did not do anything wrong I think it is the person who gives the money to operate the algorithm that is fully responsible for what the algorithm purchases.  

1 Software Developer

• Did not commit any wrong act only wrote a program
• Would you prosecute the inventor of the Breadth first search for creating a quick way to search even if this search could be used for bad?

I think the software developer in this situation is not at fault if instead the software specified the purchase of only drugs then they would be at fault.

2 Hardware Developer

• The algorithm can be run on a computer
• Do we prosecute Alan Turing for creating a machine that can do bad things?
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people with guns

I think that the hardware developer is not at all at fault and could never be in this situation for the reasons noted.

3 System Designer

• I don’t think that a robot being able to purchase things from the darknet is inherently negative this is an interesting idea

I think the system designer is also not at fault in this situation I think the functionality of the robot is inherently neutral the ability to robotically purchase something is not bad but when that something is purposefully bad then the system designer would be at fault like the software developer.

4 The Seller

• Walmart sells rope that can be used to tie up hostages does this mean that Walmart is at fault for what is done with their products.
• Prosecute the dog breeder for breeding a dog that bites someone

I think that the seller also is at no fault I think the system is inherently risky to use but the seller is not using it so where is the wrongdoing? They also do not fund the purchases of the robot. I think the seller of this product is not responsible for the decisions the algorithm makes.

5 The Client/Owner

The client/ Owner I think takes most responsibility they are single handedly responsible for the operation of the robot and are responsible for what the robot purchases with their money. They are also responsible for what the robot sends to their address (in their possession). I think the algorithm is an extension of the individuals purchasing ability as the algorithm would not purchase anything without the instruction of the Client/Owner.