Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2008.07381

Dissecting liabilities in adversarial surgical robot failures: A national (Danish) and European law perspective

Kaspar Rosager Ludvigsen·Shishir Nagaraja
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Over the last decade, surgical robots have risen in prominence and usage. For surgical robots, connectivity is necessary to accept software updates, accept instructions, and transfer sensory data, but it also exposes the robot to cyberattacks, which can damage the patient or the surgeon. These injuries are normally caused by safety failures, as seen in accidents with industrial robots, but cyberattacks are caused by security failures instead. We create a taxonomy for both types of failures in this paper specifically for surgical robots. These robots are increasingly sold and used in the European Union (EU); we therefore consider how surgical robots are viewed and treated by EU law. Specifically, which rights regulators and manufacturers have, and which legal remedies and actions a patient or manufacturer would have in a single national legal system in the union, if injuries were to occur from a security failure caused by an adversary that cannot be unambiguously identified. We find that the selected national legal system can adequately deal with attacks on surgical robots, because it can on one hand efficiently compensate the patient. This is because of its flexibility; secondly, a remarkable absence of distinction between safety vs security causes of failure and focusing instead on the detrimental effects, thus benefiting the patient; and third, liability can be removed from the manufacturer by withdrawing its status as party if the patient chooses a separate public law measure to recover damages. Furthermore, we find that current EU law does consider both security and safety aspects of surgical robots, without it mentioning it through literal wording, but it also adds substantial liabilities and responsibilities to the manufacturers of surgical robots, gives the patient special rights and confers immense powers on the regulators.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.CRcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kaspar Rosager Ludvigsen, Shishir Nagaraja. 2020-07-27. Dissecting liabilities in adversarial surgical robot failures: A national (Danish) and European law perspective. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.07381

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗