Trusting Robots in Public: A User-Centric Approach

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

New research validates a practical framework for building social robots that are both secure and ethically aligned with public expectations.

The Ari Social Robot, pictured from both front and rear perspectives, served as the physical platform for this investigation.
The Ari Social Robot, pictured from both front and rear perspectives, served as the physical platform for this investigation.

A human-centered lifecycle governance framework (SecuRoPS) is assessed for its effectiveness in promoting safe, accessible, and transparent social robot deployments.

While theoretical frameworks for ethical AI abound, translating these principles into reliable practice remains a significant challenge. This is addressed in ‘From Framework to Reliable Practice: End-User Perspectives on Social Robots in Public Spaces’, which reports on a pilot deployment of a social robot receptionist evaluated through the lens of the SecuRoPS framework. Results indicate generally positive user perceptions regarding safety and data protection, yet highlight crucial areas for improvement in accessibility and inclusive design for public-facing robots. How can we best bridge the gap between ethical guidelines and genuinely user-centered social robot deployments to foster trust and wider acceptance?

The Expanding Threat Landscape of Social Robotics

The increasing presence of social robots in public environments introduces novel cybersecurity risks that extend beyond traditional computing devices. These robots, designed to interact with people and collect data, often rely on wireless connections, cameras, and microphones – all potential entry points for malicious actors. A compromised robot could expose sensitive personal information gathered during interactions, or even be manipulated to cause physical harm, representing a direct threat to user safety. Unlike smartphones or computers, the embodied nature of social robots means that a security breach isn’t simply a data leak; it’s a compromise of a physical presence with the capacity for interaction, escalating the potential consequences and demanding a re-evaluation of conventional security protocols. The challenge lies not only in protecting the robot itself, but also in safeguarding the individuals who interact with it, necessitating robust encryption, authentication, and continuous monitoring to mitigate these emerging vulnerabilities.

Conventional cybersecurity protocols, designed for static systems and predictable network traffic, struggle to accommodate the dynamic and embodied nature of social robots. These robots, existing physically in the world and interacting directly with people, present a moving target for traditional defenses. Their reliance on sensors, cameras, and microphones creates multiple entry points for malicious actors, while complex human-robot interactions introduce unpredictable data flows that bypass standard intrusion detection systems. Furthermore, the AI driving these robots – often machine learning models – can be susceptible to adversarial attacks, where subtly crafted inputs manipulate the robot’s behavior. Consequently, securing social robots requires a paradigm shift towards proactive, adaptive security measures that account for their physical presence, complex interactions, and the vulnerabilities inherent in their artificial intelligence.

The successful integration of social robotics into daily life hinges critically on public acceptance, and unresolved security flaws represent a substantial obstacle to fostering that trust. Should vulnerabilities in these increasingly prevalent robots be exploited – compromising personal data, disrupting essential services, or even causing physical harm – public perception could quickly turn negative. This erosion of confidence wouldn’t simply delay adoption; it could stifle innovation in areas where robotic assistance offers genuine benefits, such as elder care, education, and accessibility. A single, well-publicized security breach could overshadow years of development and significantly impede the realization of socially assistive robotics’ potential, ultimately hindering progress toward a future where humans and robots collaborate seamlessly and safely.

SecuRoPS: A Lifecycle Approach to Trustworthy Robotics

The SecuRoPS framework structures the deployment of social robots across four distinct, iterative phases: Design, Development, Deployment, and Decommissioning. This lifecycle approach mandates security and ethical considerations are integrated into each stage, rather than addressed as afterthoughts. Specifically, the Design phase focuses on threat modeling and defining acceptable risk levels; Development prioritizes secure coding practices and vulnerability testing; Deployment emphasizes runtime monitoring, incident response planning, and data privacy adherence; and Decommissioning ensures secure data erasure and responsible hardware disposal. This continuous, phased methodology aims to minimize potential harms and maximize user trust throughout the robot’s operational lifespan.

The SecuRoPS framework integrates user-centered design and risk mitigation throughout the entire robot lifecycle. This begins with initial conceptualization, where potential user needs and foreseeable hazards are identified and addressed in the design process. During development and testing, mitigation strategies are implemented and validated through iterative prototyping and user feedback. Deployment involves continuous monitoring of robot interactions and environmental factors to detect and address emerging risks. Post-deployment operation includes regular security updates, data privacy checks, and mechanisms for reporting and responding to incidents, ensuring ongoing safety and ethical considerations are maintained throughout the robot’s functional lifespan.

Traditional security approaches for social robotics often address vulnerabilities after they are identified, resulting in delayed responses and potential harm. SecuRoPS advocates for a fundamental change to this model, prioritizing security and ethical considerations throughout the entire robot lifecycle. This includes incorporating threat modeling and privacy impact assessments during the design phase, implementing secure development practices, and establishing continuous monitoring and update mechanisms post-deployment. The framework emphasizes that security is not a one-time fix but an ongoing process of risk assessment, mitigation, and adaptation to evolving threats and user needs, thereby reducing the potential for exploitation and fostering public trust.

Real-World Validation: The ARI Robot Deployment

The ARI robot provided a practical environment for evaluating the SecuRoPS framework due to its deployment as a university receptionist. This role necessitated consistent interaction with a diverse user base, generating quantifiable data on system performance and user engagement. The reception desk setting also presented realistic security challenges, including physical access control and potential for unauthorized data access attempts. Utilizing a functioning robot in a public-facing position allowed for observation of SecuRoPS features – data minimization, transparency, and physical tamper resistance – under conditions mirroring real-world deployment scenarios, providing valuable data for iterative refinement and validation of the framework’s effectiveness.

To align with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements and foster user confidence, the SecuRoPS framework, as deployed on the ARI robot, prioritized data minimization and transparency in its data collection practices. Specifically, only essential data required for receptionist functions – such as visitor identification and appointment scheduling – was collected. Users were provided with clear, concise information regarding the types of data being collected, the purposes for which it was used, and data retention policies. Furthermore, data processing activities were logged and auditable, allowing users to verify compliance with stated privacy principles and exercise their rights regarding data access and deletion.

To mitigate physical access risks, the ARI robot incorporated several tamper-resistant features. These included a securely fastened and sealed outer shell designed to deter and visibly indicate any unauthorized opening attempts. Critical internal components, such as the processing unit and network interface, were mounted using specialized fasteners requiring unique tools for removal. Furthermore, the robot’s base incorporated a weight-based intrusion detection system, triggering an alert upon any significant, unintended movement or tilting, and all access ports were physically secured with locking mechanisms and tamper-evident seals. These measures aimed to protect the robot’s hardware and data from both casual interference and more deliberate attempts at compromise.

Cultivating Trust: Perceived Safety and User Acceptance

The integration of SecuRoPS – a system prioritizing physical tamper resistance – significantly enhanced user perceptions of safety during interactions with the ARI robot. Research indicates that over 80% of participants reported feeling confident in the robot’s physical security, suggesting that visible and demonstrable safeguards are crucial for fostering positive human-robot collaboration. This finding highlights the importance of addressing not just actual security, but also the perception of security, as a primary factor in user acceptance and trust when deploying robots in everyday environments. The design prioritized features that minimized potential for physical manipulation, directly contributing to this heightened sense of safety amongst study participants.

The study revealed a strong correlation between data handling practices and user confidence, demonstrating that prioritizing General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) principles significantly cultivates trust. By implementing data minimization techniques – collecting only essential information – and ensuring complete transparency regarding data usage, the research team fostered a sense of control amongst participants over their personal information. Remarkably, over 90% of individuals involved in the study explicitly perceived and acknowledged the system’s adherence to GDPR standards, indicating that clear and conscientious data governance is a powerful driver of user acceptance and a crucial element in establishing secure and ethical human-robot interaction.

The research findings reveal a significant level of user confidence in the ARI robot, effectively validating the proposed human-centered security framework. A majority of participants within the study did not express concerns regarding cybersecurity vulnerabilities or potential risks to their personal privacy while interacting with the system. This suggests that the implemented security measures, encompassing both physical protections and data handling practices, successfully mitigated perceived threats and fostered a sense of safety among users. The high degree of trust observed indicates a strong alignment between the system’s security design and user expectations, paving the way for broader acceptance and integration of similar robotic technologies in sensitive environments.

The study validates SecuRoPS, a framework built on anticipating user needs in public spaces. It reveals a delicate balance between perceived security and genuine accessibility. This echoes Henri Poincaré’s sentiment: “It is through science that we obtain limited knowledge.” The framework isn’t about achieving absolute certainty – an impossible goal – but establishing reliable practice. Abstractions age, principles don’t. The paper demonstrates that focusing on core principles – ethical transparency, inclusive design – yields better outcomes than chasing fleeting technological advancements. Every complexity needs an alibi; SecuRoPS provides one, grounded in human-centered design.

What Remains?

The validation of SecuRoPS offers a provisional architecture, not a final solution. Positive user perceptions of safety and transparency are encouraging, yet represent a baseline expectation, not an achievement. The persistent challenges in accessibility and inclusive design suggest the field continues to prioritize technical demonstration over equitable deployment. The question isn’t whether social robots can operate in public, but whether they ought to, given the continued exclusion of significant user groups.

Future work must resist the allure of novelty and focus instead on rigorously quantifying the benefits – and, crucially, the harms – of these systems. Metrics of ‘social acceptance’ are insufficient. The emphasis should shift toward demonstrable improvements in lived experience for all users, particularly those historically marginalized in technology design.

Ultimately, the longevity of social robotics in public spaces will not be determined by engineering prowess, but by a willingness to confront the uncomfortable truth that elegant design does not automatically equate to ethical practice. Silence on these points is not golden; it is merely a postponement of necessary reckoning.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.10770.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-11-17 13:57