The Law And Nanotechnology 188
YIAAL writes: "An article in Smalltimes raises the issue of legal implications of nanotechnology in all sorts of areas. Would nanoweapons be treated as chemical or biological weapons, or do they need a new treaty? If you can use nanotechnology to copy anything and then share the "plans" with friends who can use nanotechnology to make copies of their own, is it like Napster for the material world?" The gray goo problem - accidentally releasing a self-replicating device that turns the entire world into copies of itself - is going to be a huge spur for close regulation of nano-devices.
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily. Nanobots could be built that have the capability to detect a certain chemical, seek it out, and absorb that chemical, and then shut down. No outside control would be necessary.
But, if a hoarde of nanobots gets out of control, we do have a way of stopping them, an Electro Magnet Pulse wreaks havoc with pretty much every electronic device, and to shield the little buggers would be an act of utter stupidity.
In order to be vulnerable to EMP the nanobots would have to contain semi-conductors. Here's some useful info:
"Society has entered the information age and is more dependent on electronic systems that work with components that are very susceptible to excessive electric currents and voltages."(15) Many systems needed are controlled by a semiconductor in some way. Failure of semi-conductive chips could destroy industrial processes, railway networks, power and phone systems, and access to water supplies. Semiconductor devices fail when they encounter an EMP because of the local heating that occurs. When a semi-conductive device absorbs the EMP energy, it displaces the resulting heat that is produced relatively slowly when compared to the time scale of the EMP. Because the heat is not dissipated quickly, the semiconductor can quickly heat up to temperatures near the melting point of the material. Soon the device will short and fail. This type of failure is call thermal second-breakdown failure. Source [geocities.com]
But there are several different possibilities for the future of nanobot production. Some of these are entirely mechanical, some entirely chemical, or even biological. An EMP would do nothing to these types of nanobots.