I can see the headlines now, “Robot Mugged”
More like company getting sued because the dog injured himself attacking the machine. Dogs are scared of machines, at least that is what movies say.
I can’t wait until it snows.
On the other hand, note that the feds cannot make such a law because the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate robotics.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
And speaking of intrastate robotics, the feds are already trying to win votes concerning robots as evidenced by talk about regulating drones which they have no express constitutional authority to address imo.
In fact, note that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had warned patriots to be vigilant with respect to the federal government unconstitutionally expanding its powers in subtle ways, this politically correct endangered species issue a good example of such expansion imo.
”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
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. Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"
Some thug wants to take on the robot - in seconds the face-recognition software, fingerprints and DNA sample information will have been sent to police.
And you say there aren't enough police to deal with this type of property damage? Police robots will serve warrants... and if the perp doesn't show up for court a live cop will go out and arrest them.
As far as safeguarding packages - it's easy - build a box into the robot. It doesn't open until the robot says it opens. And yes, in the old days crooks could take a safe to a hideout and leisurely open it up... but the safe wasn't communicating with the bank and the police - which made it a whole lot easier...