10 ms·
EFF Takes a Stance: San Francisco Shouldn’t Arm Robots
- colpabar 4y ago
- aqme28 4y agoI still do, and lethal police robots seem as good an argument as any.
- factsarelolz 4y ago> defund the police Buy the Police millions of dollars worth of armed robots controlled by police. Kinda special aren't ya?
- aqme28 4y agoI'm not following.
- factsarelolz 4y agoYou said you still agree with defunding the police but it seems like you're okay with giving the police millions of dollars to buy robots. So how can you defund, while giving them MORE money/budget for a button that controls the machine shooting someone versus them doing it themselves?
- aqme28 4y agoNo, you completely misread me. If the police are asking for killer robots, that's an argument to defund. Where did it seem like I was in favor of the robots?
- factsarelolz 4y agoYou're taking what they said out of context. They don't want to defund the police they want police reform. Defund the police was an easier chant. Like ACAB, except when needed to combat peaceful protesting from someone you don't like. You can thank the NGOs for spreading "defund the police" while the people affected by the defunding cry for police presence in their high crime areas.
- manuelabeledo 4y agoApparently, after all the "defunding", they still have money to spare to buy fancy killer robots.
- incomingpain 4y agoYou can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. Bad idea. On the opposite side, the robot never gets to fear for its life and end up shooting innocent people. There ought to be high definition recordings proving lethal force was necessary. Freely available to all public for review. Absence of video being immediate summary judgement for misconduct charges to the operators which includes jail time. Police unions thusly aren't getting involved. So I can see some pros and cons. The big question I have, why is San Fran the first to do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci...
- mc32 4y agoJust guessing this would be used in proscribed circumstances, such as a hostage situation or someone holed up so you can further avoid hurting bystanders. The advantage is you don't have to act in a fraction of a second because in the person + robot system the person representing the law is not in immediate mortal danger and is not put into a life-death decisionmaking pressure. So presumably the outcome for law abiding citizens is improved.
- smcg 4y agoSurely the explosions will ignore the innocent bystanders
- incomingpain 4y agoHow many 'hostage' situations are there in San Fran? I expect none or damned close to none. No, these bots are going to be used in a more liberal fashion to justify all the effort being used to arm them. This wont be for rare situations, this will be used for their ongoing crisis.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Eleison23 4y ago
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoThe police having killer robots wouldn't be a problem worth caring about (or much of one at all) if the police were held to the same standards as the less equal animals when it comes to use of force.
- Ajedi32 4y agoThat would be ridiculous. "Use of force" is pretty much the entire reason we need police in the first place. Unless you want officers who are unwilling to do their jobs due to risk of prosecution, or citizens engaging in legalized vigilantism in order to stop crimes, the standards regarding use of force for police officers and normal citizens pretty much _have_ to be different.
- PaulHoule 4y agoI think of the tough issues that police departments face that divide communities. In my area we unelected the sheriff after a botched raid at the house of a middle-aged white man who had a history of incarceration, who was expected to return to prison for a relatively minor offense, but told people "I'd rather die than go back to jail". He did not show up when he was supposed to show up. Police went to his house to arrest him. He was holed up in his house for more than 48 hours, the SWAT team showed up, they punched holes in the walls so that they could observe him through. Eventually the man shot himself. This man was armed but not immediately dangerous except to himself and to the police. Situations like this result in a lot of recrimination. I am a real fan of this guy https://www.amazon.com/Hostage-Cop-Captain-Frank-Bolz/dp/0892561025 https://www.amazon.com/Hostage-Cop-Captain-Frank-Bolz/dp/089... who managed to resolve a number of difficult situations just by talking, but tragedies like this are happening and often seem to end badly no matter what they do. I don't know what the answer is, but they are looking for one.
- smcg 4y agoThe next comment said the answer - end qualified immunity.
- frankharv 4y agoEnd Soros backed District Attorneys. How a foreigner could influence our legal system is scary. How's that soft on crime philosophy working out?
- jonnybgood 4y agoSoros is a US citizen. You don’t really know anything about Soros, do you?
- dang 4y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- carapace 4y ago
- implements 4y agoHere’s the scene in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW6wRX54Xk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW6wRX54Xk8 He’s assaulted for “disrespect” after cracking wise, using the f-word twice and being slow to hand over his bag. A YouTube commenter opines: “Exactly like this you should treat Protestors in our time too. Fucking 0 respect should be treated with 0 respect and violence!” - which I think answers your question of who would program brutality into a Police robot.
- carapace 4y agoI usually refrain from this sort of meta-comment but I gotta say I'm a little startled to see my original comment was flagged. I'm not sure exactly what to make of that. In any event, thanks for linking to the scene. I re-watched it and it's more egregious than I recall. I won't repeat what I said, but I stand by it. (FWIW, I live in SF, I grew up here, and I'm moving away ASAP.)
- user3939382 4y agoEFF's brand and marketing portrays a wholesome organization fighting for the people. That is sometimes the case, but notice the positions they take either benefit or don't affect telecoms, whose interests they surreptitiously exist to advocate. It took me many years to realize this. You may disagree with me which is fine, but keep this in mind over time as you observe their positions and see for yourself.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoWhy does that matter with regard to armed robots?
- user3939382 4y agoBecause this post is another example where they always make themselves out to be the good guys but they have an agenda like anyone else.
- marcinzm 4y agoSo what is your argument in this case? That no one is allowed to portray themselves as the good guy unless they're 100% perceived as good by everyone?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoWhat is wrong with their argument?
- johnhenry 4y agoHealthy skepticism is always good, but are there organizations that go out of their way to make themselves not look like "good guys"?
- wan_ala 4y agoHaving opinions on dystopian armed robots != being a bad organisation. Also isn't being pro-privacy an agenda too? They have always opposed the US government.
- 4y ago
- xwdv 4y agoInstead of thinking of them as robots, think of them as tools. These are remote weapons platforms that allow operators to engage and destroy dangerous targets with little to no harm to themselves. I think it has its place. Remember an incident a few years ago in Dallas where a robot with a bomb was sent to blow up a shooter and saved lives? There is precedence. When a shooter encounters an invulnerable robot armed with a rifle, they instantly know it’s game over. They either comply or be killed, quickly and accurately. Face recognition can enable instant headshots for minimal threat to bystanders.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoIt doesn't have to go fully into lethal territory either. Simply putting a camera in there helps the police. Even more with things like bean bag rounds, dazzlers, tasers, pepper spray, CS gas, rubber bullets, etc. A screen and a camera to allow negotiation "facetime" would be helpful as well.
- nradov 4y agoThese robots do not use facial recognition or make autonomous decisions about using weapons. Everything is remote controlled by a human police officer.
- maxfurman 4y agoI refuse to believe that the problem with policing in this country is that too few people have their lives ended by the police and their tools
- GartzenDeHaes 4y agoIf anyone is curious about the kind of robot they're talking about, here's a USAF infomercial about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIte7K1GswU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIte7K1GswU
- josephcsible 4y agoWhat does this have to do with the EFF? They're straying from their original purpose again. And why is everyone pretending that these are autonomous killer robots, when they actually need to be remotely controlled by human police officers? How is using a gun that a robot is holding any worse than using a gun that you're holding directly?
- unethical_ban 4y agoIf you presume that police are prone to excessive use of force, then this is a way for police to abuse their power with even less risk to themselves. Ah yes, those protestors are really troubling and we might get hit in the head with a rock if we are unlucky, so let's deploy the remote-cop to quell dissent.
- josephcsible 4y ago> we might get hit in the head with a rock Isn't the point of the robot to reduce how much they have to worry about this kind of thing, making it less likely they need to preemptively use violence?
- LightHugger 4y agothis doesn't seem to be how it works in practice. Weaponized remote control robots are already a thing in warfare (drones) and it seems to make murder way too easy.
- unethical_ban 4y agoTo be clear, the assertion is that cops do immoral violent things often enough that enabling them to be violently immoral more easily is a bad thing.
- easygenes 4y agoThis topic seems to me to be unambiguously close to their core mission of defending liberty in the face of technology.
- 1970-01-01 4y agoRobots will only be used as a deadly force option when [1] risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and [2] officers cannot subdue the threat after using alternative force options or de-escalation tactics options, **or** conclude that they will not be able to subdue the threat after evaluating alternative force options or de-escalation tactics. Do not give SFPD permission to kill people with robots. There are many alternatives available to police, even in extreme circumstances. Police equipment has a documented history of misuse and mission creep. While the proposed policy would authorize police to use armed robots as deadly force only when the risk of death is imminent, this legal standard has often been under-enforced by courts and criticized by activists. For the sake of your constituents' rights and safety, please vote no. Other than the reputation for police to abuse tech, it's not clear how killer robots will create a new problem. EFF even states how enforcement of legal standards is the problem, not police equipment.
- philippejara 4y agoThe equipment is not sentient, it'll always come down to abuse of the equipment, the same way an automatic weapon doesn't create any problem by itself, but what people can do with it does. Take a gander at drones in the middle east for a more extreme example.
- johnhenry 4y ago> Other than the reputation for police to abuse tech... This is the main issue, right?
- whartung 4y agoI think the word "robot" is really overloaded in this case. They're machines, but beyond that they're basically sophisticated remote control cars. Outside of perhaps autonomous drone avionic controls, and maybe software and systems that allow some of the machines to climb stairs, they're basically stupid sensor platforms. The military has been using "robots" in combat for 50 years. Any guided missile can be considered a robot, though I'd argue that those with seeker heads vs the crude mechanics of the V2 are more "robot" than not as they have built in "decision making" capability. The Navy's "Phalanx" CWIS is, indeed, a very sophisticated robot. It can be turned on, weapons free, to follow through with its "if it flies, it dies" motto. As far as I know, it's never actually been deployed that way. It's always been used with a man in the middle with their finger on the button. But, left to it own devices, it will happily (can robots be happy?) sweep the nearby sky of anything that flies. This includes things like friendly helicopters, which is one of the reasons its kept on a short leash. There have certainly been tragic mistakes, notably Iran Air Flight 655. A dot on a screen taken out by an autonomous tracking system released by a human hand. What the police are talking about is none of these. It's an RC car, with a camera. It's as much a robot as a sharpshooter using a night vision site. It's not an ED-209, by any stretch. It's not even a step toward an ED-209, save for one thing. That word "robot" again. Robot is too broad. I'd prefer something more specific, "manually remote controlled platform" or something. I don't want the the slippery slope of what is now a fancy RC car sliding down into an ED-209. "It's just a robot, and the legislation says robots are ok!". And I appreciate the distinction between military and police matters. A remote detonated land mine should fall under this policy, something the military uses all the time. But it's hardly a "robot". Because what we're talking about is remote controlled lethal force, especially problematic if the authorities don't have clear line of site. What you really want to avoid is sending in some machine, that has limited scope of the environment, giving the human operators a limited view of the situation. Hard to safely deploy lethal force if they can't see everything in the room. As long as the machine is under complete human control (outside of things like drones that use software to maintain stability and such), I don't have a problem with these. We also don't want a repeat of Philadelphia 1985, which is honestly about as close as we have to a Worst Case Scenario of how these might be deployed.
- robbywashere_ 4y agoThis will make headshots more precise with machine learning and computer vision. I personally do not like the prospects of judicial killing when “a threat to civilian and officer lives” has been hand waved away again and again.
- eklitzke 4y agoPolice aren't trained to shoot people in the head, they're trained to shoot the "center mass" (i.e. chest area) if they need to shoot someone at all. And the main reason police have fire weapons is when they feel there is an imminent and credible threat to their life/safety, which a robot would eliminate. I'm not saying robots can't be abused in this application, but I think you can make the argument that if deployed correctly they would result in fewer people being shot in incidents with police.
- ausbah 4y ago"when police feel threatened" is too often used as an excuse for police abuse
- robbywashere_ 4y agoPolice are trained to aim for center mass because that is the most effective take down of a target by a human hand. So I would assume, the machine with a gun attached to it, would have the technology to instantly kill said target with a headshot. I have no question that the tech exists to instantly see and aim with millimeter precision. Could this same precision be used to non lethally incapacitate a target ? —- I’m a cynic. I am having trouble assuming a precise machine with a weapon attached to it in the first place would exist as an effort to employ non lethal force.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- robbywashere_ 4y agoI think the term “robot” is being used incorrectly here. Police are using military grade killing machines, not robots.