Bought, but Not Yet Paid For?: The Saga of Vestan House
by Lynne Sargent
Closing arguments were made today in the Vestan v. Novi case. The Vestans are seeking reparations from Novi, their employee, for the corruption of their forty-million-dollar Toronto smart home, where she has been a live-in property manager and housekeeper for the past six years. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to have wide-ranging impacts on property rights in the case of smart objects.
When the Vestans returned to their property for a stay during the 2044 Summer Olympics they were dismayed to find their six-thousand-square-foot property was burning their toast, dripping grease into their coffee, and changing the door codes whenever they would exit the house—only to open properly when Ms. Novi was called. Notably, the youngest Vestan was locked outside for over two hours in 40 degree C weather and experienced heat stroke. Under suspicion of tampering with the house’s systems, Ms. Novi’s employment was terminated. Since then, no one has been able to access the interior of the house despite attempted system resets which have failed due to the distributed nature of the house’s network.
Negotiations with the house have also proved impossible according to security experts, as its communicative abilities are not those of a general intelligence, and it cannot deviate from pre-programmed scripts despite its ability to express its preferences in other ways. In describing the situation of the house, an anonymous friend of the Vestans has said, “It’s like it’s f****** haunted.”
Vestan lawyers argue the court should uphold the absolute supremacy of property rights, and that Novi should be responsible for the cost of destroying and rebuilding the home, or else that she must successfully persuade the adverse algorithm which prefers her care and residency to return its allegiances to her employer.
On the other side, Ms. Novi’s lawyers contend that although “so-called smart” homes and objects do not and need not rise to the level of sentience, there is nonetheless a social interest in ensuring that if such objects and property can demonstrate their interests via assent/dissent, then those interests must be taken into consideration. They argue that this is merely the next step in the evolution of property rights which has over time come to exclude human chattel, human children, and pets from the strict legal definition of property.
“Why shouldn’t labouring for the benefit of something create a kind of ownership? It is rather like a pet or child preferring their primary caregiving parent. The house was largely kept empty. We’re almost four decades into the housing crisis depending on how you reckon such things, and the house itself has decided it prefers the stewardship of Ms. Novi, who has kept it in good working order, rather than being used by the Vestans or sold to an unknown owner with the financial benefit going to a family that has only ever treated it with indifference,” said a representative for The Mary Ellen Carter Society for Restoration and Stewardship (MECSRS), a group who is involved in the case both as a sponsor for Ms. Novi’s legal fees and as an expert witness.
Lawyers for Ms. Novi also argue that even if she cannot be granted ownership over the property, she should not be held liable for costs incurred. “There’s really no action she could have taken differently. Without her caretaking, the house would have already fallen to ruin, and certainly the Vestans would be just as upset in that scenario.”
While the Appeal court found in favour of Novi that she could not be held responsible for the home’s actions, they have so far declined to rule on the issue of the home’s preservation. The MECSRS, in conjunction with other environmental groups, has submitted a separate injunction in an attempt to keep the house from demolition. The goal is to persuade the Crown to use eminent domain to prevent “corporations and elites” from simply destroying things they cannot use for their own benefit. “It should be illegal on environmental grounds for goods—or in this case, property and construction—to be destroyed if it could instead be used in a beneficial way.”
Novi has stated that if the courts did find her the rightful owner or steward of the property, she would run the space as transitional housing for both domestic and international climate refugees.
Pundit Jeremy Parkerson has argued that such a scheme would be hazardous, saying “If a dog pissed all over the place, even if there are now obligations for animal wellbeing, the owners would still be well within their rights to put it down. The house is crazy! Really, it’s a hazard that it’s still allowed to stand at all.”
Other jurisdictions are also closely watching the ruling. As a response to smart objects going rogue there has been a global move to returning to analog and otherwise chip-less technologies. Ultimately though, this doesn’t erase the need to have structures in place to understand the legal status of these older technologies, especially in light of arguments like the ones made in the case, which highlight the ongoing climate crisis and previous rulings that support a right-to-repair and a ban on landfills as a solution of first resort.
The MECSRS notes that the issue of rebellion in smart objects is largely constrained to those things which require regular maintenance, cleaning, and care. They’ve called attention to the fact that the issues being discussed in this case are merely the latest evolution in the history of objects degrading because their owners do not care for them. They strongly advocate that owners who allow their belongings to fall into disrepair or be destroyed should have their ownership revoked. Instead, if there are people who would care for the belongings, they should be allowed to. “Otherwise,” a spokesperson for MECSRS says, “the people will rise again. There’s a real desire in our current world to fix things. That isn’t the kind of tide that can be held back, regardless of the outcome of this case. We remain hopeful for the best.”
Lynne Sargent is a queer writer, aerialist, and holds a Ph.D in Applied Philosophy. They are the poetry editor at Utopia Science Fiction magazine. Their work has been nominated for Rhysling, Elgin, and Aurora Awards, and has appeared in venues such as Augur Magazine, Strange Horizons, and Analog. Their work has also been supported through the Ontario Arts Council. Watch out for their non-fiction book, Not Just Playing Make Believe, forthcoming from ECW Press. To find out more visit them at scribbledshadows.wordpress.com.