Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Acceptance of Fundamental Rights via a Telepresence Robot and a Video Call Stand in South Korea

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technical mediations are commonly used by remote persons to exercise legal rights in distant places, but the legal ability of remote persons to substitute their physical presence using technical mediations is broadly shaped by whether the public accepts that a specific form of technical mediation of a remote person is tantamount to their physical presence. In telepresence robot markets, local users already accept that remote robot operators can exercise serious professional rights via telepresence robots. It is likely that the public acceptance of local rights of remote operators via telepresence robots in workplaces may at some point be expanded to include more fundamental human rights in social life. To verify the superior potential of remote operators mediated via telepresence robots to be socially accepted as bearers of fundamental rights, which theoretically qualify the juridical concept of “person” as bearers of rights and following duties, this study compared public acceptance of remote operators to exercise fundamental rights via a telepresence robot with physical control and a stationary video call stand without physical control. In experiments with 210 Korean participants, responses to whether a remote operator mediated via a telepresence robot should be granted fundamental rights were close to neutral, which was generally higher than the responses received for a remote person mediated by a stationary video call stand. The result shows that a remote operator with physical control on a technical mediation has more potentials to evolve into legal persons with greater fundamental rights in a local environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This article is based on a part of the author’s doctoral dissertation from University of Hawaii at Manoa in 2015 [2].

  2. There existed more legal issues involved than the acceptance by the people in queue. Managers of the Apple store, who must have looked at responses of waiting persons, accepted the H-TR of Kelly as a legal customer, and even allowed a remote person operating a robot to buy a new iPhone immediately. Their decisions also shaped a part of the public acceptance to grant the legal authority to the H-TR in queue. If similar cases of teleshopping via robots occur frequently and public opinions form, Apple needs to provide a new service manual for H-TR customers.

  3. Legally operating robots requires more than exclusive rights on robots as ownership and license. For instance, even the legitimate owners of robots may operate their robots illegally in case that they violated safety rules or harm other persons.

References

  1. Avatar (2016) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. Accessed 5 Dec 2016

  2. Bae IH, (2015) The politics of robotic telepresence: can media be considered a person? With a focus on a South Korean case. Dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hi

  3. Bavitz C, Christopher, Barabas C, Matias JN, Xie C, Xu J (2015) Legal and ethical issues in the use of telepresence robots. In: We robot 2015 conference on robotics, Law & Policy

  4. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42:179–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Coradeschi S, Ishiguro H, Asada M, Shapiro S, Theilscher M, Breazeal C, Mataric M, Ishida H (2006) Human-inspired robots. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):4–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Day T (2009) Avatar rights in a constitutionless world. Hastings Commun Eng L J 32:137–156

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dibbel J (1993) A rape in cyberspace. Village Voice 38(51):36–42

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ellison LM, Pinto PA, Kim F, Ong AM, Patriciu A, Stoianovici D, Rubin H, Jarrette T, Kavoussi LR (2004) Telerounding and patient satisfaction after surgery. J Am Coll Surg 199:523–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Follette L (2013) Telemedicine boosts health care access, efficiency, safety and quality. Marin Indep J. http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20170827/FEATURES/170829856 Accessed 5 Sept 2017

  10. Gray JC (1921) The nature and sources of the law. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gray CH (2001) Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hartmann T (2010) Unequal protection: how corporations became "People" and how you can fight back. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hern A (2017) Give robots ‘personhood’ status, EU committee argues. The guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/give-robots-personhood-status-eu-committee-argues. Accessed 11 June 2017

  14. Kahn PH, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier NG, Severson RL, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S (2012) Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol 48(2):303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koster R (2000) Declaring the rights of players. http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/playerrights.shtml. Accessed 15 June 2014

  16. Leber J (2013, April 11) Does a tele-robot operator need a visa and W-2. MIT Technology Review

  17. Lee KM (2004) Presence, explicated. Commun Theory 14(1):27–50

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee MK, Takayama L (2011) Now, I have a body: uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In CHI ’11: Proceedings of the 29th annual CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 33–42

  19. Natale JM (2002) Exploring virtual legal presence: the present and the promise. J High Technol Law 1(1):157

    Google Scholar 

  20. Richard N, Smart W (2012) How should the law think about robots. In: We robot 2012 conference, April 2012

  21. Robo3. http://www.robo3.com/robo3_intro. Accessed 12 June 2014

  22. Ryal J (2015) A robot named Lucy is lining up to get an iPhone 6S in Australia. Mashable

  23. Sampsel D, Bharwani G, Mehling D, Smith S (2011) Robots as faculty: student and faculty perceptions. Clin Simul Nurs 7(6):209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Seibt J (2016) Integrative social robotics—A new method paradigm to solve the description problem and the regulation problem? In: Nørskov, M./J. Seibt, What social robots can and should do—Proceedings of robophilosophy 2016/Transor 2016

  25. Sirkin D, Venolia G, Tang J, Robertson G, Kim TM, Inkpen K, Sedlins M, Lee BS, Sinclair M (2011) Motion and attention in a kinetic videoconferencing proxy. In: INTERACT ’11: Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 international conference on human–computer interaction, September 2011, pp 162–180

  26. Son JK (2010) Korea’s early adopters set the tone for electronics giants. Korea-magazine

  27. Surrogate (2016) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986263/. Accessed 5 Dec

  28. Takayama L, Go J (2012) Mixing metaphors in mobile remote presence. In: CSCW’12 Proceeding of computer supported cooperative work 2012, February 2012, pp 495–504

  29. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea. http://www.ccourt.go.kr/home/att_file/download/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2015

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Future Strategy, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, N5 2250, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Korea

    Ilhan Bae

Authors
  1. Ilhan Bae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilhan Bae.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bae, I. Public Acceptance of Fundamental Rights via a Telepresence Robot and a Video Call Stand in South Korea. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 503–517 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0453-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0453-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation