3 ms·
> It has an inherent conflict. I.e. for example drone is stopping a killer who would have otherwise killed someone. Not using it will impair ability of the pote
by randallsquared 7y ago
> It has an inherent conflict. I.e. for example drone is stopping a killer who would have otherwise killed someone. Not using it will impair ability of the potential victim to exercise the license all the same.
No license is required not to use the software, so that is not an example of an inherent conflict.
- shmerl 7y agoLicense that prevents stopping a killer is already unethical, so I assume we are not talking about such cases. The assumption is that license is aiming at preventing using it for some evil intent, but not for valid defense or crime prevention.
- manicdee 7y agoThe truly unethical thing here is the hypothetical lethal force drone available with such fast response time that it can stop a killer, and the law enforcement framework that allows the killer to get to the point that a lethal force drone is the obvious solution rather than boots on the ground. The entire hypothetical setup is unethical, existing only to justify rampant violation of licenses.
- shmerl 7y agoThat's moot. How do you define the "fast response" or "lethal force" levels of what's ethical or not here?
- manicdee 7y ago“Lethal force” is its own definition: it is lethal, which means the target dies. “Fast response” is already defined as “fast enough to stop a killer” which implies that these things will be deployed 24/7 waiting to be called into service at a moment’s notice. That means you are setting up expensive infrastructure and a need to justify the ongoing expense which means a police force predisposed to using lethal force for any encounter.
- shmerl 7y agoBeing set up 24/7 is not a requirement for the drone itself, it's something about how it's operated. Seems like your idea is that license would need to specify very narrow requirements for each case.