News channels, Buzzfeed, unnecessarily long Twitter threads - they all
provide a constant reminder on what values the general (American, for the purpose of
this writing) population places on freedom of expression and, particularly, freedom of
speech. While the focus is generally geared towards ideas that people would like to see
added instead of maintaining a minimum standard (specifically, attempting to expand
the liberties of more open states versus maintaining a minimum degree of liberty
throughout the globe), there are certain points that can make us question the values we
hold as a society.
In some cases, we might discuss the incidents of a few silenced twitter
bots with the same degree of severity that we discuss the silencing of nations. I would
not venture to go as far as to say people genuinely value twitter bots as much as
humans, but there is an incentive to defend these bots - or other machines - out of
self-interest. For example, Amazon’s defense of Alexa’s freedom of speech was
constructed almost solely to prevent spreading the company’s reputation as a ‘spyware’
manufacturer. In a certain sense, this is a human act completely removed from the
machine, but in another, it brings the possibility of a non-human entity being treated as
a human - at least as far as the law is concerned. This is not the most grand of
examples, of course. Considering that machines already hold DEFCON Black Badges
and were treated as human contestants , or in the case of Sophia , where we saw a
machine being granted human citizenship - just as any other person, her rights would
be protected; and legally, the distinction of Sophia's nature versus that of born 'humans'
was incredibly blurred - what does this mean for the idea of freedom of speech?
Imagine your phone’s ‘freedom of speech’ prompting loss of data because
the phone is unwilling to be used for collaboration (although how exactly this would be
determined escapes me). For many Americans, the idea would seem ridiculous.
Granted, this isn’t exactly what we are talking about when we discuss a machine eligible
for freedom of speech - at least not generally. To begin, most of the conversation would
center around AI systems or pseudo-AI systems, not static machines (although the
distinction is fairly hard to make sometimes), and not even Alexa’s case worked like the
proposed phone scenario.
By taking a deeper look into Alexa’s case, we can argue that the speech
that was being protected is not that of Alexa, but of Alexa’s owner. The specific
argument was noted as follows:
ARGUMENT(8)
A.
The First Amendment Applies to Alexa’s Audio Recordings
and Responses
Once the Echo device detects the wake word, the Alexa Voice
Service endeavors to respond to any ensuing voice communications
detected in the user’s home. Accordingly, searching Alexa’s
recordings is not the same as searching a drawer, a pocket, or a
glove compartment. Like cell phones, such modern “smart”
electronic devices contain a multitude of data that can “reveal much
more in combination than any isolated record,” allowing those with
access to it to reconstruct “[t]he sum of an individual’s private life.”
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489 (2014).
The recordings stored by Amazon for a subscriber’s Echo
device will usually be both (1) the user’s speech, in the form of a
request for information from Alexa, and (2) a transcript or depiction
of the Alexa Voice Service response conveying the information it
determines would be most responsive to the user’s query. Both
types of information are protected speech under the First
Amendment.
By citing the user’s speech as a main source of concern, we are prompted to argue, not
for a machine, but for the human that is tied to it through means of speech and interest
patterns. Similarly, the twitter bots incident is arguable only because the ‘voice’ behind
the bots is very human, and the bots can be seen as tools for transmiting ideas instead
of generating them.
In this sense (and completely ignoring the case of more independent
machines like Sophia), we can analyze the human-machine connection that has been
caused by concerns of freedom of speech. If we take a step back and focus on this
connection instead of the machine’s rights, we see that the machine is becoming an
extension of the human. Unlike newspapers, programs, or even twitter bots (although
these can vary depending on regulations); which are seen as tools of distribution, the
case of Alexa insinuated that the machine was a collector of private information that
could fingerprint an individual and make predictions on the individual’s thought process
based on previous or recent requests. In many ways, Alexa is being treated like a
mind-reading personal assistant.
As we come to this clarification, we can consider the following:
1. Is the machine effectively an extension of the human (at least as far as the
law is concerned)?
2. Assuming that it is, can we use decisions such as these to prepare for a
future of human augmentation?
3. Where does this leave independent AI/pseudo AI systems?
As per the argument in the previous section, we can possibly reach the conclusion that,
lawfully, a machine can be classified as an extension of the human. In a future of
human augmentation, the idea of free speech might change drastically. If someone is
equipped with an implanted data collector (such as a device that can recall, profile, and
catalogue every passing person on the street, for example), would they be free to share
opinions based on this knowledge even if those opinions have a dangerously high basis
on what is essentially espionage?
Alternatively, if the data were somehow extracted, would they have a right
to collaborate without infringing someone else’s freedom of speech/expression? In this
second scenario, the augmented human has been turned into the new Alexa, so reason
would say that the person has the right to stay silent by protecting a passerby’s right to
freedom of speech.
Even without the consideration of independent AI/pseudo AI systems, we
have slightly stepped into the realm of science fiction. Given the current conditions,
however, the idea of passerby identification and profiling is not far-fetched.
Ultimately, it would be premature to say that humans value a machine’s
freedom of speech more than - or even as much as - a human’s, given that the
machine’s defense has so far been given in defense of the human or collaboration of
humans tied to the machine and not in defense of the machine itself . However, as we
approach an era of human augmentation and constant machine collaboration, this
conclusion will either prove itself very clearly through fuller human-machine integration
or invalidate itself at least partially through the rights of independent machines.
Although given the fact that I have chosen to write about AI instead of humans in
suppressed conditions might reveal a slightly bleak perspective.
1 Koetsier, John. “Do Robots Have Free Speech?” Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2017/02/24/do-robots-have-free-speech-ama
zon-says-yes/#453752dd86a4
2 A DEFCON Black Badge grants lifetime access to the conference. In this case, would
the badge be accepted as long as the machine is working, as long as its creators live, or
as long as the parts are around? Is the machine being treated as a completely separate
entity from its creators?
3 Pzdupe1 “A team of hackers has changed the future of computing forever” Business
Insider.
http://www.businessinsider.com/forallsecure-mayhem-darpa-cyber-grand-challenge-201
6-8
4 Wootson, Cleve. “Saudi Arabia, which denies women equal rights, makes a robot a
citizen” The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/10/29/saudi-arabia-which-d
enies-women-equal-rights-makes-a-robot-a-citizen/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a766248
00282
5 Thomas Fox-Brewster. “Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment
In Murder Trial Fight” Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/02/23/amazon-echo-alexa-murder-tr
ial-first-amendment-rights/#7d019b6e5d81