695
A retired Penn professor has been blocking Uber Eats robots for months. This week, she got arrested for it (www.phillyvoice.com)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
254 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53250107

Police confirmed they had responded to a report of "criminal mischief involving a robot" on the 1200 block of Filbert Street around 1:16 p.m. on Wednesday. A woman on the scene ignored "multiple commands" to move, they said, resulting in a criminal violation notice for disorderly conduct.

Uber declined to comment.

Marvin, who plans to contest the charge on the grounds of her First Amendment right to protest, has been undeterred by the arrest. She plans to continue blocking Uber Eats robots and chatting with curious passersby who ask what she's doing.

"It allows me to talk to people about what's going on," she said. "It's always very interesting conversations that we have, and I think it's good to have those kinds of conversations in public space."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 days ago (7 children)

But can they order you to move because you are standing in the way of a robot? Disobeying an order is arrestable, fair enough. Blocking a person is probably illegal (depending on how it's done). So I'm uncertain of the activity necessary to block such a robot. Just standing straight up an down in front of it sounds legal. Actively and continuously stepping in front of it to block it at least sounds worse. But how do you enforce this? What if a dog blocks or attacks a robot? What are robot/corporations rights?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    It has nothing to do with robots having rights - which they don't. It's about deliberately obstructing what another person is doing. Calling it "just standing straight up an down" doesn't change that, any more than if you refused to make way for somebody pushing a cumbersome shopping cart. How do you enforce this? Well, in this example the cops tried to tell the woman to move along, and arrested her when she refused. If a dog damages property you can sue the dog owner. If you have more questions please look them up yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Of course it changes that. No where in time or space on earth have there been autonomous deliveries moving about in the same space as you or me. So the interesting philosophical and practical question is "who has the right of way". And as you say - "deliberately obstructing what another person is doing" when there is no person being obstructed. Someone may if may not be waiting. If I was on the receiving end of that meal, I would expect another drone delivering my food. Just as I expect packages to be rerouted if a delivery truck has a break down.

    So the answer is "no one knows right now". Or to be presice, "no one, and especially not you, knows right now. And I for one will find it interesting when it is solved. Just not from you".

    If you want more answers, please go look them up you yourselves - don't waste my or others time posting it here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Police get a lot of leeway when telling people to move. I suspect her blocking the robot, may be considered a public nuisance (like blocking traffic or a sidewalk). Her ingore a lawful command to move = jail.

    note: this is not support of the robots, just indicating the fact that they are probably allowed under current laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    "Public nuisance" is definted as an illegal act, condition or thing that interferes with the rights of the general public.

    Robots are not members of the general public, and have no rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •