3. Laws and regulations 25 4. The machine nature of robots should be transparent, and illusion of emotions not used to exploit vulnerable users; and 5. It should be possible to find the person responsible for a given robot. Set out in 2010, these rules were intended as a living document and a basis for discussion and debate. Research however shows that it is hard to stop people from bonding with service robots and attributing volition to them (Knight, 2014). Also, it is not clear whether rule no. 5 applies to the Responsible Person of the Machinery Directive (HSE, 2011) or a person directly responsible at a given moment. The UK’s British Standards Institute (BSI) standard BS 8611:2016 provides guidelines for the identification of potential ethical harms (BSI, 2016a) as well as for the safe design and protective measures of industrial, personal care and medical robots (BSI, 2016b). The standard recognised that potential ethical hazards arise from the growing number of robots and autonomous systems being used in everyday life, highlighting that ethical hazards have a broader implication than physical hazards. However, claims of compliance with BS 8611:2016 cannot be made, as it is written as guidance and recommendations rather than a specification or code of practice. Hence it is important that different ethical harms and remedial considerations are duly considered. Taking control: robots and risk