4 ms·

I know this question might sound silly but can FBI "arrest"/confiscate/disable the robot itself because it's aiding a fugitive? And the person/company that owns

by Jerry2 10y ago

I know this question might sound silly but can FBI "arrest"/confiscate/disable the robot itself because it's aiding a fugitive? And the person/company that owns the robot, can they by charged with aiding a fugitive? IANAL but would love to hear what some more informed have to say about this. The law is constantly catching up to technology....

galdosdi 10y ago
IANAL either but I would naively expect the gimmickry to be irrelevant and for this to be treated no different than having a telephone call with Snowden.
CamperBob2 10y ago
It definitely raises interesting questions about mind-body duality. If a telepresence robot is a physical manifestation of Snowden's self, then it would seem to be fair game for the FBI to arrest it. If it isn't, then we have to ask how a sufficiently-advanced version of the robot would really differ from one's physical body. To make the question meaningful, I suppose you'd have to stipulate that the robot is somehow irreplaceable. Meaning it's the only one of its kind that's capable of representing itself as the body of Ed Snowden, and that it's the only means at his disposal for interacting with the outside world. On the other hand, it's no stretch at all to say that the company who provided the robot is liable under US law for aiding and abetting him, especially if Snowden has to use their servers to communicate with it. (Well, OK, it's a stretch, but it's a stretch that the US judicial system has had no qualms about making in the past.) Our Federal courtrooms aren't often mistaken for philosophy classrooms.
- tlrobinson 10y ago
  I think if my robot is arrested then it's only fair for it to be allowed to serve my jail time for me...
- jandrese 10y ago
  How are they going to waterboard a telepresence robot?
- nojvek 10y ago
  Getting very close to the argument: we should fine Boeing because their planes aided in 7/11. The plane was a manifestation of the pilot. It's not like those robots are only made for Snowden are they?
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago
    > we should fine Boeing because their planes aided in 7/11 Those gas station corn dogs are a crime against humanity but a fine seems excessive.
- spacehome 10y ago
  Would you arrest a telephone?
  - stepanhruda 10y ago
    I would if I could
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fiatmoney 10y ago
Cannot "arrest" something that's not a natural person, but yes, they could absolutely seize a bot under a number of civil forfeiture laws, or likely as evidence. The burden would be on the owner to sue to get it back.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I've always heard that with civil forfeiture they are "arresting the money". Isn't that arresting a non-person? Or have I just been reading simplifications?
  - fiatmoney 10y ago
    Simplifications. "Arrest" has specific meaning in most jurisdictions. "Seizing" would be more appropriate; one can seize property as well as persons, and in the case of persons there can be a seizure without an arrest. The point is what a designation is for; in the case of an arrest vs detention or seizure for natural persons, it's usually an elaborate shell game around when various search doctrines or other restraints on police behavior kick in. In the case of property, the only point is to grab your stuff; the circumstances surrounding it don't particularly matter because they can always decide later under one doctrine or another that they're entitled to keep it.

by Jerry2 10y ago

galdosdi 10y ago

IANAL either but I would naively expect the gimmickry to be irrelevant and for this to be treated no different than having a telephone call with Snowden.

CamperBob2 10y ago

It definitely raises interesting questions about mind-body duality. If a telepresence robot is a physical manifestation of Snowden's self, then it would seem to be fair game for the FBI to arrest it. If it isn't, then we have to ask how a sufficiently-advanced version of the robot would really differ from one's physical body. To make the question meaningful, I suppose you'd have to stipulate that the robot is somehow irreplaceable. Meaning it's the only one of its kind that's capable of representing itself as the body of Ed Snowden, and that it's the only means at his disposal for interacting with the outside world. On the other hand, it's no stretch at all to say that the company who provided the robot is liable under US law for aiding and abetting him, especially if Snowden has to use their servers to communicate with it. (Well, OK, it's a stretch, but it's a stretch that the US judicial system has had no qualms about making in the past.) Our Federal courtrooms aren't often mistaken for philosophy classrooms.

tlrobinson 10y ago
I think if my robot is arrested then it's only fair for it to be allowed to serve my jail time for me...
jandrese 10y ago
How are they going to waterboard a telepresence robot?
nojvek 10y ago
Getting very close to the argument: we should fine Boeing because their planes aided in 7/11. The plane was a manifestation of the pilot. It's not like those robots are only made for Snowden are they?
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  > we should fine Boeing because their planes aided in 7/11 Those gas station corn dogs are a crime against humanity but a fine seems excessive.
spacehome 10y ago
Would you arrest a telephone?
- stepanhruda 10y ago
  I would if I could

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fiatmoney 10y ago

Cannot "arrest" something that's not a natural person, but yes, they could absolutely seize a bot under a number of civil forfeiture laws, or likely as evidence. The burden would be on the owner to sue to get it back.

CaptSpify 10y ago
I've always heard that with civil forfeiture they are "arresting the money". Isn't that arresting a non-person? Or have I just been reading simplifications?
- fiatmoney 10y ago
  Simplifications. "Arrest" has specific meaning in most jurisdictions. "Seizing" would be more appropriate; one can seize property as well as persons, and in the case of persons there can be a seizure without an arrest. The point is what a designation is for; in the case of an arrest vs detention or seizure for natural persons, it's usually an elaborate shell game around when various search doctrines or other restraints on police behavior kick in. In the case of property, the only point is to grab your stuff; the circumstances surrounding it don't particularly matter because they can always decide later under one doctrine or another that they're entitled to keep it.