robots – Terence Eden’s Blog

The expectations of privacy in driverless cars

Terence Eden — Sun, 13 Sep 2026 11:34:13 +0000

Do riders in autonomous vehicles think that they are in a private space? Here's a fascinating story from California where an robotaxi was redirected from its intended destination and, instead, delivered its misbehaving passengers to the police.

The 15-year-old passengers were riding in a driverless autonomous car around San Mateo Monday afternoon. The teens drank alcohol inside the Waymo taxi and shot Orbeez beads with a toy gun toward other vehicles.

A Waymo employee, who was remotely monitoring the car, tricked the unruly teenagers, authorities said. The employee told the young passengers that the Waymo was having mechanical issues and needed to stop.

Unknown to the teens, the employee had also called the San Mateo Police Department to report that a gun was firing from the car.

Here’s how Waymo tricked unruly teen passengers in San Mateo

Is that OK?

Kids shooting (albeit fake) guns out of cars is bad. I've no problem with the long arm of the law feeling their collars.

But what sort of reasonable expectation of privacy do you have when you jump into a driverless car?

If you have a blazing row with your partner while sat in the back of a black cab, the driver's going to hear, right? There's no privacy expectation although you might rely on their discretion.

Take a phone call and arrange a drug deal, the driver might turn you in to the police. They're not a confidant, are they?

Kiss someone you shouldn't and you accept the risk that the driver might both notice and care.

But when there's no driver, there's no risk of your privacy being invaded is there?

Nine former Tesla employees told Reuters that Tesla workers shared customer videos and images recorded by in-car cameras between 2019 and 2022.

Tesla Workers Shared ‘Intimate’ Videos Recorded By In-Car Cameras

Ah.

I don't know how Waymo was alerted to the problems in the car. Perhaps someone called them and reported the numberplate. Perhaps the car heard raised voices and sent an alert. Perhaps Waymo just regularly drops in on all its customers.

Rummaging through Waymo's various privacy policies eventually leads to this rather ambiguous page which describes how they monitor the inside of their vehicles.

Our autonomous vehicles are equipped with an advanced suite of sensors – including cameras and microphones – that act as the 'eyes and ears' of our Waymo Driver.
Cameras inside the car
Cameras are a way for us to make sure that your trip goes smoothly. Among other things, we may use cameras to:

Make sure that cars are clean

Find lost items

Provide help in case of emergency

Check that in-car rules are being followed [Emphasis added]

Improve products and services

Promote safety and security [Emphasis added]

Our Support team may review video under certain circumstances, including after an issue is brought to our attention. Occasionally, in more urgent circumstances, Support may access live video during a trip.
Microphones inside the car
The microphones inside the car are only on during voice calls with Rider Support or when you actively choose to enable microphones inside the car.

To me, that sounds like riders' voices aren't automatically sent back to the mothership. Indeed, they're at pains to say:

Waymo vehicles also have a number of sensors, including our audio-detection system used to detect police and emergency vehicle sirens. Waymo has implemented technical and procedural safeguards designed to limit the collection of any human voice data from these microphones.

So there is some acknowledgement of privacy - for our voices at least. Meanwhile, passengers are all watched over by machines of loving grace or, at the very least, fallible humans with prurient interests.

About a decade ago, people were theorising that a driverless cars would one day deliver to you a rider who died on the journey. I don't think that's happened yet - instead, we have cars watching what what we do. Silently judging us picking our noses. Examining our body language for signs of stress. Tracking our breathing patterns and heart-rates to ensure we aren't going to cause damage to the vehicle.

Not listening though. That would be a step too far.

Besides, who needs to use a microphone when you've got a high-resolution camera backed by AI?

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2001-lip-reading-web.mp4

Just as I finished writing this post, a story broke about how a Waymo pulled over and called the police on riders who had "ghost gun". The company said it alerted the authorities after detecting a terms of service violation.

Of course, it didn't say how it detected that!

I also find it curious that in both cases, the alleged perpetrators were juveniles. Maybe children have less of a right to privacy than adults?

I guess when you ride alone, you ride with a snitch.

Book Review: Robots in Space - The Secret Lives of Our Planetary Explorers by Dr Ezzy Pearson ★★★⯪☆

Terence Eden — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 12:34:48 +0000

Mars is the only planet entirely populated by robots. This book is a catalogue of the history of robotic explorers. Nary a human-crewed mission is mentioned, except in passing. Instead, we get to look at the practicalities of landing a little robot a million miles away, the people that made it happen, and the politics which inevitably stymied things.

And there is a lot of politics.

One of the weakest areas is the political analysis behind the stories. For example, a Soviet Lunar rover is described as being "daubed with the sickle and hammer" - but there's no derogatory mention of the stars, stipes, and eagles on American craft. Similarly we hear about "the Soviet plans to invade Mars proceeded unabated" - there's no deriding description of the American plans to colonise various planets. The efforts of the European Space Agency described as "[m]ore than fifty industrial contractors from fifteen nations were involved in construction. Safe to say, it was a logistical nightmare." - while ignoring the various back-room deals that led to the American space programme being distributed around their country and their resultant logistical problems.

It isn't relentlessly pro-American (there's lots of descriptions of their failures) but it feels a bit one-sided.

There are some gorgeous photos spread throughout the book. Sadly, the ebook relegates most of them to the end rather than interspersing them with the text. At least one of the images is incorrect although, thankfully, the attribution hyperlinks to the correct photo on NASA's site.

I'm being a bit down on the book. It is a decent enough look at all the problems faced by space agencies as they tried to send machines into the void. For those of us in the computer industry, it is depressing to continually read about how we're often the weakest link:

On 2 September, a computer command was sent to Phobos 1 to turn on the gamma ray spectrometer. A single hyphen had been left out of the code, transforming it into an order for Phobos 1 to shut down. There was no way to turn it back on.

Yikes! The book is full of titbits like that - minor errors which led to major catastrophes.

It's a good starting point for anyone with an interest in space exploration and how technical and political challenges can be overcome.

Book Review: Great Robots of History by Tim Major ★★★⯪☆

Terence Eden — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 11:34:51 +0000

This is a lovely and twisted anthology of stories. Each presents a "historic" robot - be they an automaton, a puppet given life by the gods, or a resurrected villager. Some, like the Mechanical Turk, are historical fact but others are invented just for us to gawk at.

The stories are mostly dark and brooding, with the macabre turn. They're fun - but the constant theme is "what if I, an intelligent person, got trapped in the brain of a dullard?" Robots who are self-aware of their limitations reveal to us how terrifying dementia must be.

We meet robots who are reassured that they are without sin, and those which long to sin. Perhaps malicious dæmons reside in their programming just as bugs reside in our souls?

A fine collection.

Let's get rid of humans

Terence Eden — Mon, 03 Aug 2020 11:57:44 +0000

We place a large premium on Human. Mostly because it is what we've always known.

But, when given the choice, we often ditch humans for something better.

Some random examples…

Radio DJs
- Does anyone actually miss witless chatter between records? Use of Spotify suggests a large number of us don't need a Human to introduce the next record. Or hold a phone-in. Or read out dates of a gig.
- We might prefer a human to curate the music we listen to. But is AI any worse than Payola?
TV continuity announcers
- Anyone in the Netflix / TiVo era miss them?
- Autoplaying trailers may be annoying, but they don't need a presenter.
Supermarket checkouts
- I know some people miss a natter with the person working the tills. But those of us behind them don't miss waiting!
  - (Yes, there ought to be better facilities for lonely people. No, the Tesco isn't best placed to serve that need.)
- They often need a human when things go wrong.
Meter reading
- I don't miss a stranger poking through my house to read my gas meter. I'm more comfortable with corporate surveillance than relying on a Criminal Background Check for a fleet of individuals.
In the workplace
- I don't need a PA to type up my memos. Or a Human pushing a tea cart.
- I let a robot check my spelling, but I often ask a human to check whether my documents are clear & readable.
At home
- I don't employ a maid to wash my dishes, or to sweep the floors. Robots have quietly and successfully replaced them.
- OK, a microwave dinner isn't as good as a home-cooked meal. But it's a hell of a lot quicker and convenient.

I know some of you miss Humans Doing Things. But I really don't. I don't think the organic premium is worth paying for most things.

I'm not saying you're wrong for not feeling the same way as me, obviously.

There are lots of things Humans are good at. And some things for which they are uniquely suited. Similarly, Robots are experts in some areas. And, where they're not perfect, they're cheap and consistent.

Humans should know their place.

Queer Computers In Science Fiction

Terence Eden — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 13:52:07 +0000

An interesting question appeared on Twitter - where are the queer robots in Sci-Fi?

Let's first define what we mean by Queer. This usually means outside of binary gender and/or someone who is attracted to the same sex - what's commonly referred to as LGBT+. Feel free to supply your own definition.

As for what we mean by AI - let's go with "mechanical or non-biological autonomous being." That's probably wide enough - but do please suggest better definitions.

So is a gay/lesbian robot one who is attracted to other robots? Or to humans with a similar gender? Let's go with yes to all of the above.

Do robots have gender?

Humans love categorising things - especially inanimate objects. Some languages divide every noun into male a female. Why? Humans gonna human.

The television is female in French - "la télévision" - but masculine in German - "der Fernseher". Stupid humans and their pathetic meaty brains.

Nevertheless, humans can usually look at a human-ish thing and assign it a specific gender.

Maschinenmensch - from Metropolis - is a Gynoid (as distinct from an Android). "She" has a feminine body shape and that's enough for most people to go on.

HAL - from 2001 - is just a disembodied voice. But it definitely has a male voice. Is there any attraction between Hal and Dave? I doubt it - but it's an interesting reading of their toxic relationship.

Robosexual?

Kryten - from Red Dwarf - is coded as male. All the characters refer to him with male pronouns. Under British comedy rules, he is also "camp" - an over-the-top and stereotypically effeminate man.

Kryten is sexually attracted to other household appliances.

But... Kryten's "perfect mate" is a distinctly female Gynoid. (Fun fact - Camille and Kryten are played by real-life wife and husband Judy Pascoe and Robert Llewelyn!)

C-3P0 - another British campbot - is clearly in love with R2-D2 - whether or not that love is reciprocated is hard to say.

Threepio and Artoo may behave like an old married couple - but the astromech has an eye for the ladies.

I say "ladies" - just because a robot is pink, doesn't mean it's a girl. (KT-10 is a girl though.)

Robots attracted to humans

There are several examples of "female" computers falling in love with male humans - and a disturbing number of sex-worker bots - but it is much harder to find queer examples.

The Tick has an AI in a boat. The AI is male and attracted to other men. Who may or may not be boats.

Is the boat programmed to be gay? Are his desires hardwired? Are yours?

Remember "Alien: Resurrection"? Winona Ryder played the robot "Call" who has a "suggestive" relationship with Ripley. As this ship video demonstrates.

Battlestar Galactica has some bi-sexual Cylons

Apparently there's a few gay Autobots and gay Decepticons in Transformers.

TV show "Humans" has one of the robots fall in love with a human

Ambiguity

Is Rachael from Blade Runner a robot, or a lesbian?

Clearly, yes.

Gender reassignment

It's possible for you to swap the gender of your Voice Assistant in real life. Your GPS can have a male voice one day, and you can swap it to female the next.

I couldn't find many examples in fiction which an AI changed gender.

Back to Red Dwarf again. In the series 3 opener "Backwards" it is revealed that Holly (a computer with a male face) fell in love with Hilly (a computer with a female face). And subsequently performed a head sex change. Although she kept the name Holly.

The entire crew of Red Dwarf accept this. They never comment on it, nor disparage her.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: if you can't accept your trans friends, you're literally a worse human than Arnold Judas Rimmer.

"I, Robot" - the 3 laws considered harmful ★★★★★

Terence Eden — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:25:17 +0000

What happens when a robot begins to question its creators? What would be the consequences of creating a robot with a sense of humour? Or the ability to lie? How do we truly tell the difference between man and machine? In "I, Robot", Asimov sets out the Three Laws of Robotics – designed to protect humans from their robotic creations – and pushes them to their limits and beyond.

After attending a lecture on the ethics of self-driving cars, I decided to re-read Asimov's "I, Robot".

Any discussion of robots killing people inevitably returns to the supposed wisdom of the "3 laws of robotics".

I argue that the "3 laws" should be considered harmful.

Let's remind ourselves of the laws:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

The first thing to note is that these are a literary device - not a technical device. Killer robots are boring sci-fi. The interesting sci-fi is looking at "good" robots which inexplicably go bad. "I, Robot" is essentially a collection of entertaining logic puzzles. Æsthetics are not a good basis on which to build an algorithm for behaviour.

The second thing to note is that the laws are vague. What do we mean by "harm"? This is the lynchpin of one of the stories where (spoilers!) a telepathic robot avoids causing psychological pain.

Most people can't deal with complexity. Here's a common complaint:

Archimedes’ Principle: 67 words The Ten Commandments: 179 words The Gettysburg Address: 286 words The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words The US government regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words As circulated by email from everyone's "kooky" relative

The claim above is utter nonsense - but laws are complex. The Ten Commandments may be short - but they cause a huge amount of ambiguity. What does "Thou shalt not kill" cover? Gallons of ink has been spilled interpreting those four words. Ironically, blood has been shed trying to resolve those ambiguities.

Would it have been helpful to have, from the start, 30,000 words explaining exactly what each rule meant?

Thirdly, these aren't natural laws. Too many people - including scientists - seem to think that these are hard-wired into robots! I've had conversations with otherwise rational people who haven't quite grasped that these aren't baked into the fabric of existence.

The "laws" are a harmful meme. That's testament to the power of Asimov's writing. His stories have infected every discussion of robotics and ethics. Even though we know it is fiction, something deep inside us recognises them as a necessary part of creating "acceptable" robots.

The 3 laws are brilliant for story-telling, but lousy for AI policy making.

What does a robot look like?

Terence Eden — Thu, 05 Jul 2018 11:13:17 +0000

This is a question I often ask my students. Typically they say a robot looks like this:

Or this:

Broadly human, but mostly metal.

Occasionally, I get non anthropocentric answers like this mule:

Or even something stark and industrial like this:

One is experimental, the other is rarely seen in day-to-day life.

The truth is, we're surrounded by robots. This is what a robot looks like:

Each of these robots has "stolen" a job from a human. Multiple humans, probably.

I'm old enough to remember when a tea lady would push a trolley around an office and sell the workers snacks and hot drinks. Nowadays, there's a machine to pour out a coffee and another one to dispense chocolates.

You see them every day and you treat them as part of the furniture.

Just as a car is not a horseless carriage, robots are not metal men.

Would You Shoot R2-D2 in the Face?

Terence Eden — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 12:05:28 +0000

The most distressing movie moment I experienced when I was a child, was watching R2-D2 being shot by a TIE fighter towards the end of Star Wars. (Spoiler!) The sheer callousness of a "baddie" deliberately inflicting pain on a cute a loveable character is, I suppose, understandably upsetting - especially to a small child.

I also got upset at C-3PO being dismantled in The Empire Strikes Back, and at Johnny 5 being beaten up in Short Circuit 2. But both those characters have anthropomorphic features - bipedeal, two eyes, hands, and - most importantly - voices. R2-D2 has none of those. He isn't recognisably human in any conventional sense. Yet, undeniably, he (and R2's gender is a whole other topic!) is "cute". He has a silly, sing-song voice, a mischievous personality, and has a bumbling means of locomotion. Just like a pet.

This brings me to the topic of war. Naturally.

Watch this video of Boston Dynamics' "Big Dog" robot and tell me what your reaction is to the event at 35 seconds.

Most people I know have a visceral reaction to it. While obviously a robot - our primitive monkey brains see it as a living creature. When someone inflicts pain on it, our emotional response kicks in before our rational response.

That's the reaction that people have after experiencing the robot for less than a minute. What would happen if you spent every day working with a similar robot?

As it turns out, humans form very strong emotional bonds with their robot "pets".

Julie Carpenter, from the University of Washington, recently published a thesis entitled "The Quiet Professional: An Investigation of U.S. Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal Personnel Interactions With Everyday Field Robots." The investigation is whether or not having an emotional attachment to an EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) robot might influence the decisions made by the robot's operator to the extent that it could alter the outcome of a mission. Soldiers Can Get Emotionally Attached to Robots, and That May Not Be a Good Thing

How emotionally attached, you ask?

Some of the grunts I worked with lost a MARCBOT and they awarded him a Purple Heart, BSM, and they did a full burial detail with 21 gun salute at Taji. Some people got upset about it but those little bastards can develop a personality, and they save so many lives. mastersterling on Reddit

One suggestion is that robots be designed to have less personality. I think that's the wrong approach. These robots need more personality.

It's rather easy to imagine enemy soldiers taking pot-shots at a bog standard robot - this bomb disposal unit looks totally devoid of personality; no one would have any qualms about shooting it.

Suppose it was designed to look - for want of a better word - cute? Large eyes, a dopey grin on its face, floppy ears, and a brightly patterned covering.

Instead of sending killer robots like this:

What if our war machines were designed to look like this:

You'd have to be insane not to fire at a Terminator - but what kind of sick, heartless bastard would fire at a Teletubby skipping merrily across the battlefield?

If you saw a killer robot coming towards you which looked like R2-D2 (or any other popular culture "friendly" robot) - how easy would it be for you to overcome your friendly feelings towards it?