I support strong national-security and cybersecurity protections. I am asking regulators to evaluate foreign-made robots by company, model, capabilities, and documented risk... not by country of manufacture alone. Secure and accessible companion, educational, assistive, research, household, and industrial robotic platforms from around the world deserve a fair pathway to approval. The most important parts of this petition are listed near the bottom, but I encourage anyone with a few spare minutes to read the entire thing.

My name is Laila. I am 25 years old and live in rural Georgia. 
I am a lifelong robotics/AI enthusiast, hobbyist, collector and educator.
My partner and I repair, program, modify, study and document robots at home. 
We assist with a 4-H robotics program, have run robotics programs at libraries, have conducted public robotics demonstrations at schools, and we both run YouTube channels devoted to documenting unique/unusual robots and administer a sizable Facebook community known as “Lots of Bots”.

Access to formal education in AI, AI ethics and robotics (besides industrial robots, like mechatronics) is quite limited in our area and at our budget.
Because of this, much of our experience has been developed through years of hands-on repair, programming, experimentation, documentation, and community education.

I, like a multitude of neurodivergent individuals (both diagnosed and otherwise), have robotic/AI companions in my life. These robots play a very important role. 

Many of us love to take our robots out places with us when we travel, often purely for the companion aspect. They offer a calming presence and a sense of familiarity, much like a biological pet. 
My partner and I have even flown with some of them before, secured in a carrying case in the cabin. We also have robots that are important to us for the reasons I stated above. These span from small companion-style quadrupeds like AIBO (old and new models), small humanoids/quadrupeds and other types of robots, even some non-mobile social robots as well.

My biggest goal (well, besides someday getting a formal education in my biggest interest) is to eventually be able to obtain my dream robot: a Unitree G1 or Go2. Or a similarly-sized robot with similar capabilities. This would be a significant step forward for me personally.
But that is beside the point, of course.

It has been deeply encouraging to me and many others in the robotics community to finally see the industry bringing impressive, versatile, capable robots down to a price point that isn’t only for large 
corporations, but for ANYONE who wants to purchase one for important, harmless purposes, whether they be educators, researchers, small businesses, independent developers, or ordinary consumers 
pursuing legitimate use cases.
That is significant progress from just a decade prior!

This is why the recent broad, blanketing restrictions affecting almost all types of foreign-made robots concern me so deeply. Especially when many manufacturers have no documented history of serious 
cybersecurity failures and are willing to demonstrate that their products can, and will, meet stringent standards. 

I fully support enforcing strong cybersecurity standards, national security protections and a very stringent, careful review of any robot that has the potential to collect sensitive information via its cameras, microphones, mapping systems, cloud services, wireless connectivity, remote-access functionality, etc.
Companies selling robots for use in homes, schools, hospitals, workplaces, government facilities and public spaces should very obviously be required to prove that their products are secure, transparent and 
trustworthy. This should apply to any product sold, regardless of where it came from.

However, this is where we get to the issue at hand.

I do not believe that every robotics company, every major robot model, or every category of advanced robot should be automatically treated with the same level of risk. A small companion/entertainment robot (Sony's AIBO, KEYi Tech's Loona, GROOVE X's Lovot, etc.), an industrial research quadruped/humanoid (such as those offered by Unitree, Booster, Agibot, Ubtech, etc.) and a robot vacuum (such as those offered by iRobot, Roborock, Shark, Eufy, etc.) may all contain very advanced sensors, cameras, networking capabilities and artificial intelligence, but they are not 
identical products with identical purposes, security designs, or capabilities. Likewise, companies all based within the same region may not necessarily follow the same exact set of safety standards or data 
practices as one another.

Think of Sony in Japan, which has offered a trustworthy line of AI quadruped companion robots for over 27 years. Think of how many people have adopted one of these robots because they didn’t have 
the ability to own a biological pet, and have come to find solace in the companionship these robots bring to their lives. These robots have also been crucial in research, education and long-term study of 
human-robot interactions for years.

Think of iRobot, which has offered the trustworthy Roomba line of robotic vacuum cleaners for 24 years. They reside in the US, but use components and manufacturing from both China and Vietnam.

Think of SoftBank Robotics, which is headquartered in Japan and has offered the reliable Pepper and NAO, humanoid robot platforms originally developed by the French company Aldebaran, for over a 
decade each. NAO doesn't seem to be produced anymore, but Pepper still seems to be. Regardless, Pepper and NAO robots are still a significant part of research, commercial use and education, and are a beloved, friendly presence in schools, hospitals, malls, airports, libraries and many other environments.

American companies themselves often rely partially on international components and manufacturing. Country of assembly alone therefore cannot determine the overall trustworthiness of a product.
And companies across many countries have supplied reliable robotic products for decades without being identified as presenting the same level of risk as the manufacturers that prompted these concerns.

I respectfully ask that regulators keep my voice (and the voices of many other robot owners) in mind and consider a company- and model-specific review process, rather than simply relying on broad classifications based on where a robot was manufactured. 
Manufacturers should be given a clear opportunity to demonstrate that their products meet (or exceed!) 
strong security requirements. This could include independent cybersecurity audits, transparent explanations of what data is collected and where it is sent, clear controls over cameras and microphones, secure offline functionality, stringent restrictions on unauthorized remote access, reliable 
methods for deleting stored information (both local and online), and documented plans for protecting owners of these robots with reasonable continuation of functionality when/if support ends.
Robots and manufacturers that cannot meet those standards should absolutely face restrictions. Those that can prove that they are secure and responsibly designed, though, should have a fair path towards approval.

To put things further into perspective, these restrictions may have serious unintended consequences for educators, researchers, neurodivergent citizens or citizens with disabilities, small businesses, hobbyists, 
collectors, preservationists, and the average consumer. Affordable overseas robots have allowed people without a corporate-sized budget to study and build upon locomotion, programming, artificial intelligence, teleoperation, human-robot interactions and assistive technologies that they otherwise may not have had access to anytime soon. They have also allowed smaller schools, robotics programs, community programs and independent developers to work with hardware that otherwise could have cost tens of thousands of dollars.

I fully support American companies and bringing manufacturing and commerce of such platforms to US soil. I believe domestic robotics development is very important. I would love to see the United States of America become one of the leaders in this era of affordable, capable consumer robotics.

However, current domestic alternatives are often designed only with large corporations in mind and may cost many times more than comparable accessible platforms. Until affordable domestic alternatives exist, a blanket restriction will remove one of the very few realistic paths available to low
income residents of rural areas, like me. Something I have worked hard toward for my entire life may now be impossible for me to access. And it may also affect trustworthy international companies whose robots have safely been used for decades in the name of companionship, education and research. 

I find it very hard to support unfair, broad, exhaustive restrictions on companies that have done no harm and simply desire to sell their products to American consumers as some have done for years. As consumers, we should be able to purchase what we want, and what we can afford, as long as it is 
safe.

I am therefore requesting fair consideration of the following:

1. A transparent company- and model-specific security review process.

2. A clear approval pathway for manufacturers that meet strong cybersecurity and privacy standards, 
even if that means each product revision must be re-evaluated.

3. Independent security testing rather than automatic exclusion based only on foreign manufacture.

4. Separate risk classifications and evaluation criteria for companion, educational, research, assistive, 
household, industrial and public-safety robotic platforms.

5. Protection for existing owners and continued access to replacement parts, batteries, repairs, software, 
functionality, and lawful resale.

6. Clear, proportionate transportation guidance based on battery safety, secure power-off procedures, packaging and actual operational risk, rather than robot shape or category alone. This would ensure that secure robots can continue to be transported safely alongside their owners 
during flights, whether that be for education, demonstration, research, conventions, competitions, 
personal companionship or otherwise benign purposes.

7. Publicly available documentation of standards, explaining exactly what a manufacturer must do to 
qualify for approval for US sales.

The goal should not be to weaken national security or undermine American robotics development, which are both important. It should be to create precise, effective, fair policies that protect the country 
while continuing to allow trustworthy manufacturers, researchers, educators and consumers to participate in the global robotics industry.

Manufacturers that fail to meet meaningful security and privacy standards should, understandably, be held accountable. Manufacturers that demonstrate transparent, responsible and secure practices, however, should be given a fair opportunity to enter the American market.
National security, domestic technological progress and access to affordable technology do not have to be opposing goals. With rigorous, model-specific review, the United States can protect its citizens 
while continuing to support education, innovation, accessibility, companionship and responsible consumer choice.


That is the future that I and so many other members of the robotics community hope to help build!


This petition is directed to the Federal Communications Commission, members of Congress, and other federal officials responsible for communications security, trade, and robotics policy.
Also addressed to President Donald J. Trump and members of Congress.

I am also asking aviation authorities (the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Aviation Administration) and passenger airlines (namely Delta, United, Southwest and American) to establish clear, risk-based transportation policies so that secure robots can travel safely with their owners without causing harm to anyone.

Please sign this petition if you support rigorous cybersecurity standards alongside fair, transparent, company- and model-specific review of robotic platforms, rather than broad, blanketing, and frankly unfair restrictions.
-Laila