Robots in the City:
Fear the Machines or the Deployers?

We often speak of robots as an abstract threat: they might steal our jobs, watch our every move, or replace humans entirely. Yet, behind every robot in a hospital, warehouse, street, or school, there are very human decisions: an official, a director, an industrialist, a public service, a buyer.

The real question might not be “Should we fear robots?” but rather: “Who should we watch when robots are deployed in society?”

Robots or Deployers: Where is the Power?

A robot “wants” nothing. It does not wake up in the morning intending to replace a cashier or surveil a neighborhood. It executes what it was configured to do: patrol, transport, clean, assist, film, measure, report. What changes everything is the context:

Consider three scenarios:

• Supermarket Cleaning Robot: A practical tool, invisible and accepted.
• Park Surveillance Robot: A control device, potentially intrusive with cameras and mics.
• Public Service Reception Robot: A question of accessibility, inclusion, or human substitution.

The same technology can serve to relieve or to surveil, to protect or to exclude. It is the deployment choice – not the robot itself – that carries the political responsibility.

A Robot in the Street: Who is Responsible?

Imagine an autonomous delivery robot circulating on a sidewalk and injuring a pedestrian. Who is responsible? The manufacturer for a design flaw? The software provider? The operator? The city? In practice, responsibility is often shared:

• Technical Responsibility: Design, safety features, updates.
• Operational Responsibility: Human training, procedures, authorized zones.
• Political Responsibility: The decision to authorize, regulate, or limit usage.

For the citizen, these layers are invisible. We see "a robot moving" and ask: "who decided this for me?" This is where robotics meets citizenship: demanding accountability on who deploys what, where, and why.

Why the EU Regulates First

In Europe, the trend is clear: regulate first, normalize second. This isn't to halt innovation on principle, but to set guardrails: to avoid opacity, protect data and dignity, and define risk levels.

Concretely, deploying a collaborative robot in a factory, a service robot in a nursing home, or a surveillance robot in public space does not carry the same level of requirement. Europe wants to avoid a scenario where robots are imposed on citizens as simple gadgets without debate.

"Robotics does not 'fall' upon society like weather. It is the result of human, economic, and political choices."