9 ms·
San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
- ranguna 4y agoObligatory YouTube video https://youtu.be/0rliFQ0qyAM https://youtu.be/0rliFQ0qyAM
- iforgotpassword 4y agoI thought of this one: https://youtu.be/ZFvqDaFpXeM https://youtu.be/ZFvqDaFpXeM
- scandox 4y agoIndeed. I saw this at a rather too early 12 but it definitely influences my behaviour at work.
- toofy 4y agoi love binging through I Did A Thing's videos. good choice!
- ranguna 4y agoJust found this channel some days ago, it was a good few hours of a Sunday spent.
- hardware2win 4y agoIt seems like it is remotely controlled by human Cool
- random314 4y agoYou don't have to be at the scene anymore to kill George floyd.
- gonzo41 4y agoThere's crazy level's of PTSD in drone operators. There's a really bleak movie called good kill that captures this in a military context. And here's the real life version. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/former-drone-operator-says-hes-haunted-his-part-more-1-flna6c10221271 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/former-drone-ope... Anyway, this sounds like a very terrible idea.
- xiphias2 4y agoIs there a way for people to know if those robots with machine guns are controlled by the police or a terrorist mass murderer?
- ls15 4y agoAfterwards, maybe
- random314 4y agoOr/and
- borissk 4y agoOne person's terrorist mass murderer is another person's hero - e.g. one Mr Putin.
- ben_w 4y agoGiven what led to the choice of name for BLM, I think the answer is "if they're moving, both". Even absent all that, I don't think I'd trust either remote fire control nor AI fire control for the stated scenarios. But, I remember the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, and I wonder what the real story behind this article is?
- hestefisk 4y ago/var/log/messages
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y agoAs long as it's remotely controlled, it's not a bad idea. Why should policemen risk their lives when confronting dangerous criminals? I see two potential problems though: 1) security, 2) sooner or later - in 20 or 50 years - someone will have the brilliant idea of making one of those "autonomous". This would be the beginning of a long nightmare.
- somehnacct3757 4y agoGiven the history of IoT botnets, the remote control aspect is exactly why this is a bad idea. Cops are not more technologically savvy than the average person. There's no way to tell at a glance if a death robot is controlled by good guys or bad guys. You just see a shotgun on tank treads rolling through the school hallway.
- Jensson 4y ago> There's no way to tell at a glance if a death robot is controlled by good guys or bad guys. The worst mass shooting in history was made by a guy dressed up as a cop, there is no way to tell if anyone is a good guy before they start shooting.
- gspetr 4y agoWhich event are you referring to? I thought Garissa University College attack (148 fatalities) was the worst worldwide.
- simiones 4y agoPolicing is already far too impersonal and cold, giving someone who is completely detached a remote-control gun is very high on the list of bad ideas.
- ls15 4y ago> 2) sooner or later - in 20 or 50 years - someone will have the brilliant idea of making one of those "autonomous". 2 to 5 years
- winReInstall 4y agoImagine a terrorist cell, which has no leader, no members, no financiers but is able to attack anyway. A DAO hires gig workers to assemble a "product" in a property which it has rented, the product is then programed by the DAO to attack the city it resides in. The DAO having speculated on shares of competitors of companies within the city, moves ever onwards. Terrorism as a software glider gun. Its a major theme in my game, any exponential tech advances handed to citizens, become a minority vote mechanism on society. The implications being, that freedom and exponential toys bump into a hard roof, were any clever crank can empty exponential weapons down the hallway. But society as we know it also can not continue without exponentials tapped. A rock and a hard place.
- namaria 4y agoExponential is usually an adjective applied to processes and progressions. I'm having a hard time parsing the phrase "exponential tech advance". What do you mean?
- winReInstall 4y agoIt really is the appeareance of exponential curves in any field. Biology, physics, comp science, as soon as the curve appears, it amplifies the nature of those who wield it. Comp science is obvious. Physics is similiar - if you have a working fusion device (ripped from a flying car) or any other device with exponential energy density, it amplifies the problems you can solve and cause. Biology is harder to grasp, no not really after covid. But in theory one day not far away somebody might take a backyard shed and cook something up, which is not even a disease that has "exponential" castrophe written all over it. Imagine a floating Lema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemna, blue, bio engineered to harvest carbon, all good intentions, wrapped around a bubble of methan for buyoncy. Such a plant, engineered by anyone, could block out the sun.
- quietbritishjim 4y agoUnless edited since, the parent comment said "advances" not "advance". A sequence of advances can obviously be exponential, even if they're discrete rather than continuous.
- maxbaines 4y agoAll that comes to mind is Robocop, based in Detroit if I remember correctly.
- pacifika 4y agoThe robots’ controllers aren’t under any threat at any time.
- InCityDreams 4y agoThey might get to hear some rather choice language: that alone could be considered stressful. Let alone what they can see (depending on where they choose to point the camera(s)). So, the threat of a better ptsd-related pension can always be considered real. /s just for shiggles; i do appreciate even remote situations may be incredibly stressful - ask a drone pilot/ bomb okay-er or two. Dunno about cops.
- rdl 4y agoArguably would make it easier to avoid using deadly force. Armed robot vs. barricaded subject with a hostage, the robot could advance with no regard for its own safety and only use deadly force if the attacker goes after any hostages present.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoI don't think there's any benefit in that scenario as a well armed, well trained, well equipped swat team would likely take zero damage if sent in in the same situation. Hostages or no, the desired result is generally no human casualty, perp or otherwise.
- luckylion 4y agoTell me you haven't even read the first paragraph without saying you haven't even read the first paragraph. It's about risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent, not for the officer controlling the robot.
- tgv 4y agoThat slope slips all the way to Hell.
- 4y ago
- toofy 4y agoi can see it now, in 2024 The Defcon MurderRobot Village will be wild when a 12 year old remotely strolls right through any security controls, takes it over, and sends it chasing after the spotted feds. when the most well funded and most sophisticated companies in the world are compromised on a fairly regular basis, who tf thinks this is a good idea? if the engineers who built this aren’t actively speaking out on what a terrible idea this is, then we immediately know either their judgement is entirely flawed with hubris or they just plain can’t be trusted.
- ilyt 4y agoI wanted to say "you can just make it cable controlled", but then I guess you can always hack into machine controlling it...
- pjc50 4y agoThe cable-controlled bomb disposal robot, sometimes armed with shotgun, was a common feature in Northern Ireland at least 30 years ago. In that situation it's a much simpler technology.
- ben_w 4y agoHuh, I never knew they sometimes had shotguns.
- goodcanadian 4y agoYes, it is a sort of shotgun . . . the idea is to mess up the bomb enough that it will no longer explode (i.e. destroy any timer or other trigger mechanism). It is a very crude, brute force method, but it will generally work, and if all the people have been moved away, it is relatively low risk.
- borissk 4y agoThere's a hypothesis that the social order of a society depends on the accessibility of the military tech. E.g. in Ancient Greece almost any free citizen could afford to buy the top weapon of the time (an iron or bronze sword) - hence it was very expensive for a dictator to hire a force that could deal with an armed crowd - and this is why they had a democracy. Or a free person in the 13 American colonies could afford a musket or a rifle - hence the American Revolution. On the opposite end in medieval Europe a full suite of armor was extremely expensive and very few could afford one - hence they had absolute monarchies. Makes me wonder if technologies, like armed autonomous robots, where a single person can easily control an overwhelming military force can potentially lead to erosion of the democracy in the western world.
- goodpoint 4y agoYou account of history is so wrong and biased I don't even know where to start.
- pjc50 4y ago> a free person in the 13 American colonies could afford a musket or a rifle This view of history needs to account for the nonfree people and how, despite the ambient tech level, they were kept unfree for a century after independence.
- Balero 4y agoWell, they couldn't afford/acquire a musket, which if they could on a wide scale, would probably have effected their freedom.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tgv 4y agoIt's always been that the one with power controls those with less power. We've only got democracy because of unionization and education. And some good, old-fashioned Christian guilt feelings. Now, that power needs to be distributed properly. If there were a super-villain with an overwhelming military power under direct personal control, (s)he would be able to dictate some terms, but not be able to control all the way down to individual behavior. That would require micromanaging at an impossible level. So, to completely subvert society, you need an army with a hierachy.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vt100 4y agoImagine the robot shoots an innocent person because it misidentified an object as a gun.
- johannes1234321 4y ago"Sorry, software bug, happens"
- trabant00 4y agoImagine reading the article to see this is not about autonomous robots.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoIf these are remote controlled, then there's no danger to the operator in any situation, therefore there should be less reason to require the use of deadly force. I wonder what the stats are about police needing to draw a weapon to protect someone other than themselves? (Not being facetious, genuinely wondering about the data in order to help form an opinion).
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoA dangerous criminal with an arrest warrant doesn't need to pose an immediate threat to the police, they can still run and then hurt or kill other innocent people down the line. I'm not sure if this kind of rational/utilitarian approach to thinking about policing is useful, because soon you'll end up with a perfect surveillance state and robo executioners for "the greater good". Maybe throw some precrime work in there as well, because statisticians for example have found correlations between certain looks of people and likelihood to commit crime. What if statistically the benefit outweighs the harm, i.e. more harm is prevented than suffering of innocent people being wrongly accused? Should we then lock up people to prevent crimes they haven't even committed yet?
- maest 4y ago> A dangerous criminal with an arrest warrant While you can make an argument about using deadly force against those types of actors (although, personally, I don't think the answer is clear cut), most concerns I've seen were around using deadly force in situations where it wasn't warranted, against people who did not truly pose an immediate risk to others.
- celtain 4y agoI don't see how this is a relevant argument. Police can already use deadly force when someone poses an immediate threat to themselves or others. Using deadly force via a remote controlled robot when a suspect poses an immediate threat to others isn't an expansion of that use of force policy. Killing somebody just because they're running from an outstanding warrant would be a new and terrible policy whether or not a robot was involved.
- black_13 4y ago
- PedroBatista 4y agoIs this the police version of "Life is hard, let's go shopping!" ? I would think policy makers inside SFPD would be working 24/7 with the politicians in order to bring down the ridiculous amount of crime SF has ( most of it isn't even reported because police now say it outright they wouldn't even bother to respond ). It feels like when I invent things to do when I really don't want to tackle that hard problem..
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoAs the article notes, this clause was the result of policymakers inside SFPD working with politicians to convince them that the categorical ban a supervisor originally proposed wasn’t appropriate.
- imglorp 4y agoI despise the tone, wording, and implication of the story and clickbait headline. Verge is tech enough to know it's wrong. They acknowledge "remotely piloted" in the first sentence. But then, back to drama in the second with "granting robots". Granting implies autonomy and choice where there is neither; granting the officer pilot would be more truthful. The term bot or robot should be reserved for independently thinking entities. The machine here is just a remote manipulator.
- bluelightning2k 4y agoFull Self Deadliness
- hestefisk 4y ago“Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it works or not.”
- Tozen 4y agoAmerican police have already used a law enforcement robot to kill a suspect, and way back in 2016. The infamous Micah Johnson situation (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...). San Francisco police using a robot to kill or the use of deadly force, would not be any kind of new ground or blazing new trails for American police.
- dang 4y agoDraft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33726496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33726496 - Nov 2022 (207 comments)