Cyborgs And The Law: Us Legal System's Next Challenge

The question of whether US laws would apply to full-body cyborgs is a complex one that is yet to be fully answered. The integration of technology into the human body and mind raises significant legal and ethical issues that are yet to be fully addressed.

In the US, there are already millions of people using cyborg technology, ranging from prosthetic limbs to neuroprosthetic devices implanted within the brain. As this technology becomes more widespread and enhances human capabilities beyond normal levels, it will inevitably influence our sense of identity and what it means to be human, challenging established legal doctrines.

One key issue is the protection of cognitive liberty, or the right to mental self-determination. This includes the freedom to enhance one's consciousness through direct methods such as meditation or yoga, or more directly through neurotechnology. It also encompasses the right to be free from non-consensual interference with one's cognitive processes by the state or other entities.

Another issue is the protection of personal data and privacy. For example, what laws would apply if a third party accessed and edited a person's memories or placed advertisements directly into their consciousness?

The existing legal framework, including intellectual property, constitutional, and criminal law, provides a starting point for addressing these issues. However, as cyborg technology advances, further legislative and judicial work is needed to ensure that the rights and liberties of cyborgs are adequately protected.

The Three Laws of Robotics are vague and fictional, so it is unclear whether they would apply to cyborgs

The Three Laws of Robotics, as conceived by science fiction author Isaac Asimov, are a set of rules to be followed by robots in several of his stories. They are:

• 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 to 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 Law.

These laws are vague and fictional, so it is unclear whether they would apply to cyborgs. Cyborgs are human-machine hybrids, and the Three Laws of Robotics do not define what a "human being" is. Cyborgs are also not considered "robots" in the traditional sense, so it is unclear whether the laws would apply to them.

Furthermore, the Three Laws of Robotics are not a comprehensive legal framework and do not address many of the complex ethical and legal issues that arise with cyborgs. For example, what legal rights are implicated by technology that is used to repair, upgrade, or enhance the human body and mind? Who is responsible if a cyborg harms someone? Can a cyborg's thoughts or memories be used as evidence in court? These are just a few of the many questions that need to be addressed in the development of a legal framework for cyborgs.

Cyborgs are a combination of human and machine, so it is unclear whether they would be considered human or machine under the law

In the US, the Supreme Court has begun to contemplate the concept of cyborgs in case law. For example, in the 2014 case of Riley v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers may not, without a warrant, search the data on a cell phone seized during an arrest. Chief Justice John Roberts declared that cell phones are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that they could be considered "an important feature of human anatomy".

The integration of technology into the human body has also been considered in the context of disability law in employment settings. Furthermore, the use of cyborg technology has attracted the attention of national governments. For instance, in the US, the White House Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethics has produced a white paper summarising ethical, policy, and legal issues associated with advances in neuroscience.

The existing legal framework encompassing cyborgs is inadequate and fails to address the ethical implications of cyborg technology. For example, current laws do not adequately protect the "privacy of the mind" or the right to "cognitive liberty".

The law will need to adapt to the increasing integration of humans and machines to ensure that cyborgs' rights are protected, and to establish clear boundaries and regulations.

The Three Laws of Robotics are designed to be programmed into machines, whereas a cyborg's brain would presumably still function like a human brain

The Three Laws of Robotics were created by science fiction author Isaac Asimov. They are a set of rules to be followed by robots and were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround". The laws are:

• 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 to 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 Law.

These laws were designed to be programmed into machines, whereas a cyborg's brain would presumably still function like a human brain. Cyborgs are human-machine hybrids, and the integration of technology into the human body raises several legal and ethical questions.

For example, what law applies when third parties access another person's neuroprosthetic device and edit their memories? Or what if a cyborg's device is hacked and they are made to commit a crime?

As cyborg technology becomes more widespread, issues of patent and copyright law, as well as constitutional law relating to freedom of speech and thought, will become increasingly important. The integration of technology into the human body and mind creates a new way of being and sense of self, and established legal doctrine will need to adapt to accommodate this.

The definition of a cyborg is a human with robotic parts, but it is unclear what percentage of robotic parts would be required for something to be considered a cyborg

One source states that a cyborg is a human or other creature enhanced with robotic parts. In this case, any human with robotic parts would be considered a cyborg. However, another source argues that a cyborg is half human and half robot, and so a certain percentage of the human body must be robotic. This source suggests that 50% or 40% of the body must be robotic for the human to be considered a cyborg.

Other sources argue that certain body parts must be robotic for the human to be considered a cyborg. For example, one source states that a cyborg is a human with robotic parts that would result in immediate death if removed. In this case, a human with a pacemaker would be considered a cyborg, but a human with a prosthetic leg would not. Another source states that a human with a robotic heart, liver, or lungs would be considered a cyborg, but a human with a robotic eye would not.

Some sources argue that cyborgs must have digital or electronic parts, rather than simply mechanical parts. For example, one source states that a human with a robotic pinky finger would be considered a cyborg, while another source states that a human with a robotic heart would be considered a cyborg.

The Three Laws of Robotics do not work for machines in reality because it is not possible to clearly define robot or human, or to program subjective vagaries or deterministic laws into machines or sentient beings

The Three Laws of Robotics, as conceived by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, are a set of rules designed to prevent robots from harming humans. They are as follows:

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey 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 Law.

However, these laws are not without their limitations and are not suitable for application in the real world. Here are some reasons why:

• It is not possible to clearly define what a robot or a human is. With advancements in technology, humans are becoming increasingly integrated with machines, blurring the lines between the two.
• The laws are dependent on absolute situations without any grey areas, which is unrealistic. There are numerous scenarios where the laws would cause an automaton to shut down due to conflicting inputs.
• The laws are written in English, a natural language with inherent ambiguity. This makes it difficult to program robots with consistent, safe behaviour. Concepts like 'harm' are challenging to define in precise, machine-readable instructions.
• The laws assume a level of comprehension and judgement that current AI and robotics do not possess and may never possess.
• Even if the laws could be programmed into machines, it would be challenging to update them as technology advances.
• The laws do not account for subjective vagaries or deterministic laws, which are often context-dependent and influenced by cultural norms.
• The laws do not address the rights of machines or cyborgs, which may become more pertinent as technology advances.

Frequently asked questions