Big Brother is always watching. Cameras are hidden in almost every device imaginable, and the lenses on your phone aren’t the only sneaky observer of your life.
Robot vacuums use a unique technology that includes a hidden camera to map a home’s floor plan. This lets the device instinctively know where to go without bumping into furniture or getting stuck in a corner.
George Grispos, an associate professor of digital forensics at Arizona State University, explained to the Daily Mail that these devices use a ‘two-way system’ to record the data on their wireless network, which customers can then access on a mobile app.
‘We have Big Brother in our home, effectively, and we’re either happy to invite Big Brother in, but once we do, we just need to realize what could happen,’ Grispos said.
The vacuums gather data, take images and can create a digital portrait of your home. It may seem like a harmless way to improve the product, but data taken from robotic vacuums has already had dire consequences.
A Taiwanese man used this technology to uncover evidence of his wife’s affair. He opened the app on his phone and logged into the robotic vacuum’s live camera to find his wife with another man.
He began recording the encounter and used it as evidence in a civil lawsuit against his wife for infringing on their marital agreement, winning a stunning $16,000 from the case.
The legal entanglement grew even more complicated when his wife countersued, claiming he recorded her without her consent.
Robotic vacuums, like the one pictured above, have a camera installed that can create a digital footprint of your home
Advanced models can connect to a mobile app, so users can see what their vacuums sees even if they are not home
It is illegal to secretly record or disclose someone’s private or intimate information without consent in Taiwan, and the husband was put behind bars.
‘When I read that story, the first thing that struck me was that he got jail time. Five months of jail time for using this device to spy on his wife,’ Hank Fradella, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona State University, told the Daily Mail.
Fradella explained that the patchwork of laws complicates things in the US. The federal Wiretap Act prohibits illegally obtained communications as evidence, but states differ on whether both parties must consent to being recorded.
The Wiretap Act also only applies to audio, so silent video footage can be admissible in court.
‘The fact that one spouse is using it to spy on another spouse, did they both know that they had this device, or did one? Did one install a device without the other spouse knowing? Those are the sorts of questions that might govern how those cases unfold in the handful of states that require everyone to consent,’ Fradella explained.
Consent becomes even blurrier when a consumer purchases a product and agrees to the terms and conditions.
When asked whether that could be enough to be admissible in court, Fradella confessed: ‘That’s an open question.’
‘Is constructive knowledge buried in the terms of service that nobody reads going to be enough, legally? Well, we’ll have to see,’ he added.
Jihun Joun, Hank Fradella and George Grispos spoke of the complexities of robotic vacuums and legislative gaps on the data they collect
Fradella explained that constructive and actual knowledge are different. Everyone who purchases a device that collects data and signs the terms and conditions has constructive knowledge of what they are agreeing to, but whether they are actually aware of what they are signing is a different matter.
He added that most consumers are unaware that they are agreeing to be captured in their home.
In 2022, MIT Technology Review found a series of shocking images online that appeared to have been taken by a Roomba robot vacuum.
The researchers found that employees at an artificial intelligence company tasked with labeling the images to improve the robot’s detection leaked them online.
The photos included a woman on the toilet, a child lying on the floor and various images of labeled household items.
A spokesperson for iRobot, which manufactures Roomba, told the Review at the time that the images were shared in violation of a written non-disclosure agreement with a service provider.
Grispos said researchers are still investigating the accuracy of what the camera depicts and the scope of what is collected.
Fradella noted a legislative gap in how manufacturers can use this data and what they must disclose.
‘The law is slow to evolve. The law will never keep pace with technology. It’s not possible. But there usually comes a time when a policy window opens,’ he added.
Robotic vacuums have a camera that can connect to smart devices, like the Toshiba model above
There is patchwork of laws in the US governing video and audio data that can be used in court
Fradella encouraged more transparency and a legal requirement that companies have to include a plain-language disclosure, so consumers are not sifting through a lengthy terms agreement before purchasing a product that collects data.
‘And let’s be transparent in a way that the average person opening up the device gets fair notice right away. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for,’ he added.
Jihun Joun, an assistant professor of interdisciplinary forensics at Arizona State University, noted that it is important to look for words such as ‘collect, download, store, and share’ when reading a terms agreement.
He cautioned that a disclosure letting consumers know that their data will not be sold does not necessarily mean that it will not be shared.
Grispos warned that not just robotic vacuums have these capabilities, and there is a price to pay for the latest technology.
‘There’s this technology, if you want it, it’s there, but it’s gonna come with a risk to your life,’ he added.
