The Case For a Federal Robotics Commission

New submitter hmcd31 writes: In a new paper for Brookings' series on the future of civilian robotics, University of Washington Law Professor Ryan Calo argues the need for a Federal Robotics Commission. With advancements such as driverless cars and drones taking to the roads and skies, Calo sees a need for a government agency to monitor these changes. His paper details many benefits a robotics commission could bring, from funding to assisting in law and policy issues. The policies developed by this FRC are argued to be particularly important, as their impact in creating an early infrastructure for robotics could create an environment that lets the technology grow even more.

And by "monitor this situation"

[Scareduck]

he means "make panicked decisions retarding business formation while entrenching early adopters".

Re:

[Penguinisto]

Thinking the same thing. Ostensibly, a government agency would stay the hell out of the way save for basic health/safety concerns... but in the age of bureaucrats who want to puff up their service records, I can see such a commission going straight to hell in an awful hurry.

(OTOH, seeing how ineffectual the FCC is at doing its job viz. the Internet and Network Neutrality, who knows?)

Re:

[Noah Haders]

Thinking the same thing. Ostensibly, a government agency would stay the hell out of the way save for basic health/safety concerns... but in the age of bureaucrats who want to puff up their service records, I can see such a commission going straight to hell in an awful hurry.

(OTOH, seeing how ineffectual the FCC is at doing its job viz. the Internet and Network Neutrality, who knows?)

The FCC is quite effective in protecting vested interests of those powerful enough to lobby government.

That's the real job of ALL governments - protect those powerful enough to reward the government.

agreed. job #1: make enough work to keep your job. job #2: get money for powerful people who will lobby for/against you. job #3: flex your regulatory muscles to give yourself a false sense of power. #4: profit!

Re:

[LifesABeach]

My question is, "civilian robotics overseen by the government an oxymoron?"

Re:

[penguinoid]

When developing a good AI is outlawed, outlaws will be the first to develop a good AI. And it will likely go poorly, but not like the pathetic rogue AIs of movies.

Re:

[knightghost]

he means "make panicked decisions retarding business formation while entrenching early adopters".

More likely they'll be planned and vetted by the corporations that stack the board with their employees... and, yes, entrenching them.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

He means that he want red tape where currently none exist. So, competitions like First Robotics, shows like Battle Bots, private and often experimental drones will need to get permits to operate. Heck we may need a permit to own an Arduino. After all the state needs to find a way to pay our politicians more money, so we will make up something that sounds like it might be needed and give them and their fiends BS jobs.

Everything under their control

[Anonymous Coward]

With robotics entering every aspect of our lives, such an agency would gain control over every aspect our lives.

more buerocracy

[davydagger]

I think mabey upgrading our current agencies to be more tech friendly sure, but do we really not more buerocracy?

Re:

[Livius]

I'm guessing it's about the robotics industry controlling a piece of government, not the other way around.

oh, and robot taxes, too.

[turkeydance]

special autonomous taxes, too.

Statists gonna State

[Richy_T]

Statists gonna State

also apt...

[TheSHAD0W]

"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Re:

[packrat0x]

Statists gonna State

LOL

Re:

[funwithBSD]

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Re:

[funwithBSD]

You statement does not apply to the OP context, the US and the US Federal Government.

Nice try tho. Maybe next time?

Brilliant idea...

[Type44Q]

Regulatory capture: it'll end up getting controlled by the very entities it's supposed to be controlling: robots, like the other Federal Commissions... :p

Already regulated by free market forces

[Technician]

Adding a layer of overseers adds a layer of cost to a marketing decision. Areas with high levels of automation and effecient production include food processing such as making cheese, semiconductor manufacturing, automobile welding, painting, ammusement park rides, etc.

What can government oversight do besides drive up the cost for the remaining US manufactures? The decison to automate is a business decision.

Government regulation should only intrude in safety such a OSHA guidelines. Anything beyond that is wasted resources and a higher cost of doing business.

Re:

[LifesABeach]

Like what we have now?

Re:

[Noah Haders]

FRC is a solution without a problem

food automation: FDA
automotive automation / safety: NHTSA
security/surveillance automation: NSA

is there anything that needs regulating but is not regulated currently?

Hope it works better

[BenSchuarmer]

than the CAN-SPAM act.

This is offtopic, I know

[LookIntoTheFuture]

I keep getting 15 moderator points regularly. This is the 4th or 5th time in a row. How could that be?

Re:

[ColdWetDog]

You haven't complained about Unicode or beta recently.

Re:

[I'm New Around Here]

Or the metric system.

Re:

[BringsApples]

I don't know. I've been on slashdot for a few years only. I posted regularly and have always had excellent karma. And yet I never got mod points. Then I stopped visiting slashdot because of all of the bitching and worthless arguing and negativity. I only came back here a few weeks ago. But right when I "rejoined" I got 15 mod points. I spent them all in one day. Then the next day I got 15 more. Also spent them in one day. I have not gotten anymore since then. So I'm in the same boat as you regard

Re:

[LookIntoTheFuture]

Thanks. I really just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one. I spent the bulk of the last 15 modding APK's posts as troll. :)

Re:

[BringsApples]

Yeah, when you brows posts at -1 (as they recommend when modding) you will see a lot of trolls and BS of the like. The best practice is to focus on modding up, rather than down, because most here brows at +2 or higher. It's better to not miss the good informative posts, rather than not see the trolls. At least that's my opinion.

Re:

[Noah Haders]

sounds like it's to rekindle interest in the site. the way a company will send a coupon to a regular shopper that hasn't been in the store a while.

Re:

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

I only get mod points when there are no good troll posts to +1 insightful.

ObamaBOTs! Panic!!

[Obscene_CNN]

Great we are going to have ObamaBOTs! Like nationalized robots are going to work better than nationalized health care. Are we going to have to buy Roombas whether we need them or not?

Re:

[I'm New Around Here]

Did they get further in Basic Grammar lessons than you managed to do?

Re:

[LifesABeach]

Basic Grammar? Of course! How brilient!

So it's OK to question the president? But not the shit mouths of a fundmentalist group? Why?

Re:

[I'm New Around Here]

I didn't say you are not allowed to question people.

Maybe after Basic Grammar, you should start Reading Comprehension: Enabling Effective Arguments In Online Forums.

Re:

[LifesABeach]

Lets recap here, the topic is about the President, and you're concerned about your period?

Legitimizing?

[thieh]

A commission for robotics would probably be legitimizing stuff like law enforcement drones and such, because "there is an overseeing commission watching over to ensure compliance". The tiny problem with that is of course, the one making the drones has influence over the one making the rules and the one applying the rules. Speaking of which, who likes Skynet?

Drone commission

[OhPlz]

FAA oversight of drones is truly helping that technology. No for-profit use allowed, no guarantee when they might get around to allowing it. Now let's oversee some robotics!

We need less federal government, not more.

Why?

[WindBourne]

Do you need a good modem?

Looking for a Job

[canadiannomad]

Is it just me, or does this sound like an ambitious Law Professor looking for a new job as head of a newly minted agency?

Re:

[WindBourne]

That is exactly what is going on.
As it is, the FAA is stiffling drone development before it really gets off the ground.

Re:

[Animats]

Is it just me, or does this sound like an ambitious Law Professor looking for a new job as head of a newly minted agency?

Exactly the feeling I got. We don't even have an Federal Internet Commission, and don't seem to need one.

We do need to have the Consumer Product Safety Commission setting safety standards for the Internet of Things. They're properly the lead agency of safety issues. That will probably happen after the first few deaths due to cloud-based control of home devices.

I see less need to monitor......

[WindBourne]

and more need to encourage building of many more.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, like FCC for robots? Yeah... That'll work. The government does such a great job running what they have now, right? Some of the stupidest smart people inhabit this site...

You know it's time to leave an industry when

[Anonymous Coward]

...a federal agency gets involved and you are not working at or the owner of one of the big companies that got in and rose to the top BEFORE the federal agency intervention.

A new federal agency will raise the hurdles to entry by any new upstarts and write lots of rules and regulations (assisted by "input" from the "market leaders" who will be grandfathered in). If this goes like the FAA, some of the early guys will even get to write requirements documents (which they will copyright and sell) that every new

We need FAA level autopilot code auditing

[Joe_Dragon]

for systems like auto drive cars / drones.

The last think we need is for a bad music file to be able to make auto drive car have a software crash that makes it go out of control.

Yet another regulatory fee

[RogueWarrior65]

The only thing this will accomplish is require every company to pay a ton of money for the privilege of asking for permission to sell something. Screw that. Screw that HARD.

On what Constitutional authority?

[dublin]

I know it's silly and old-fashioned to bring up the Constitution when discussing the creation of yet another sclerotic Federal Bureaucratic behemoth, but this proposal is ridiculous on its face. Even the absurdly over-stretched interstate commerce clause and general welfare clause do not even come close to justifying this sort of overreach by the Feds.

IF (and that's a *big* if) this kind of regulation is needed at all (personally, I can't think of one good reason for it), then I see no reason why it can't