7 ms·

San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

36 points by thejteam 4y ago

sfusato 4y ago
Will weaponized robots first become a thing in the West or elsewhere? First Israel, now San Francisco, a pretty dystopic future lying ahead.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  The word 'robot' is what is new here, not machine guns, airplanes and the like .. weaponized machines led to the Great Wars of the 20th Century.
  - sfusato 4y ago
    I guess you're right and that the type of government wouldn't preclude the development of dystopic weapons.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bitwzrd 4y ago
Ryan Calo is a law and information science professor at the University of Washington and also studies robotics. He says he's long been concerned about the increasing militarization of police forces, but that police units across the country might be attracted to utilizing robots because "it permits officers to incapacitate a dangerous individual without putting themselves in harm's way." Robots could also keep suspects safe too, Calo points out. When officers use lethal force at their own discretion, often the justification is that the officer felt unsafe and perceived a threat. But he notes, "you send robots into a situation and there just isn't any reason to use lethal force because no one is actually endangered." Case closed. Incapacitation should be the only usecase in a situation that removes all endangerment to officers and bystanders.
warning26 4y ago
Personally, I’d love to see robot drones remotely apply lethal force to people breaking into vehicles, but it’ll be a long time before enough red tape will be cut to make that happen.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  I take it you’ve never had to break into your own car before?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Why stop there. We could take out people who fail to pay their taxes or who let their firearms licenses lapse or don't follow covid quarantines.
- claudiulodro 4y ago
  Sounds peachy until you accidentally drop your car keys while trying to unlock your car and a robot kills you on the spot.
- ryanisnan 4y ago
  Kill people breaking into cars? What an excessive reaction.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  I like the cut of your jib! But take it even further: How about drones applying lethal force to speeders and tailgaters, too? Also people who drive under the influence, or people who are rolling coal, or aggressively driving in convoys, or driving ICE cars and trucks with low miles per gallon or high emissions, or illegally parking in handicapped spots, or driving unnecessarily often, or when they could walk or ride their bikes or take public transit instead of driving, especially parents who drop their kids off at school in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon, when the kids could be riding bikes instead. I think you're onto something!
- tj-teej 4y ago
  Do you believe no member of your family has ever experienced poverty and had to steal to survive? What a callous thing to say.
thinkmcfly 4y ago
We obviously need the right to have personal lethal combat robots if the state intends to use them against the people. Let's just not go down this road and not give the police the right to use lethal combat robots
- foxyv 4y ago
  I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.
  - cptcobalt 4y ago
    That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
    - c22 4y ago
      Imagine putting one of these things on a twitch plays.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      For drone pilots, it's rumored they actually have a lot of PTSD. You may be looking at a screen and ignore the situation now, but for healthy humans, killing someone will ALWAYS come back to haunt you, even if it's entirely justified like in self defense.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think that is pretty speculative. I think a large portion on the population would not be haunted by killing others in a wide range of justified situations, particularly when it comes to defending themselves or family from a credible threat.
cptcobalt 4y ago
Why lethal force, and not a less-than-lethal thing, like...possibly an incapacitating gas or something? I am not fan of law enforcement (in its current form in the US), but charitably, I figure law enforcement uses lethal force because they want/need to "win the race" of who gets shot first. But in a battle of human vs robot, the operator of the robot is afforded a bit more time & flexibility because they're, frankly, just a robot. You don't necessarily need to escalate to lethality. Why do we have to resort to the default human impulsive tactic of "we have to kill" and not actually use the benefit that putting a non-human device in the field could bring?
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  If you read the whole article, that's exactly what they're doing. The robots don't carry actual weapons, but they can carry breaching charges and tear gas. But "less-than-lethal" isn't really a thing, they can still kill people, so they're using the term lethal.
hacoo 4y ago
I'm not writing this as an argument for or against lethal-force robots, but I think there is some important context here. When people hear 'police robot' they tend to imagine ED-209 type robots blasting people, but this isn't really the case. Usually police want these robots for 'barricaded suspect' type situations. We have SWAT to deal with this, but entering an area held by armed suspects is still extremely dangerous. Also, because officers might need to shoot in order to save their own lives, they have to make decisions extremely quickly, which can lead to bad shootings or unnecessary use of lethal force. Since robots can take bigger risks than humans can, there are situations where they may allow officers to resolve a situation nonlethally where they otherwise couldn't That said, there are serious problems with police robots. The first is their ability to vastly expand police surveillance. Nonlethal robots face much less public scrutiny, but their potential to automate surveillance is terrifying to me. They also present a problematic revenue source for police departments, who might use them to ding people for parking violations, set up speed traps, etc, i.e., enforcement of minor crimes without actually improving public safety. A final criticism (relevant to lethal robots) is that, while they may improve officer safety, this doesn't always improve public safety. There are times when officers need to prioritize response speed -- Uvalde Tx being the prime example. They can create a 'it's too dangerous -- SOP is to wait for the robot' mentality -- police departments / officers need to have the courage to avoid this.
- vdqtp3 4y ago
  I'm pro law and order in general (although not necessarily pro law enforcement, to split hairs), but I want it to be dangerous for law enforcement to take a life. I want it to be something they have to carefully consider. I don't want it to be easy and safe. This is akin to adding more and more padding to football players...they tackle harder and harder and injuries pile up. The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use. I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety. If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force. The more officers are at risk, the more they will use lethal force.
oxfordmale 4y ago
Since it is nearly Christmas, that is an effective way to decrease the surplus population.
- oxfordmale 4y ago
  It was a Scrooge reference with a huge dose of sarcasm.
xrd 4y ago
That scene from robocop where the robot kills all the scientists in a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq7fW6ftlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq7fW6ftlU Anyone who approves lethal force proxy robots should have to run away from the robot and surrender to make sure they really know when a suspect is compliant.

36 points by thejteam 4y ago

Will weaponized robots first become a thing in the West or elsewhere? First Israel, now San Francisco, a pretty dystopic future lying ahead.

mistrial9 4y ago
The word 'robot' is what is new here, not machine guns, airplanes and the like .. weaponized machines led to the Great Wars of the 20th Century.
- sfusato 4y ago
  I guess you're right and that the type of government wouldn't preclude the development of dystopic weapons.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bitwzrd 4y ago

Ryan Calo is a law and information science professor at the University of Washington and also studies robotics. He says he's long been concerned about the increasing militarization of police forces, but that police units across the country might be attracted to utilizing robots because "it permits officers to incapacitate a dangerous individual without putting themselves in harm's way." Robots could also keep suspects safe too, Calo points out. When officers use lethal force at their own discretion, often the justification is that the officer felt unsafe and perceived a threat. But he notes, "you send robots into a situation and there just isn't any reason to use lethal force because no one is actually endangered." Case closed. Incapacitation should be the only usecase in a situation that removes all endangerment to officers and bystanders.

warning26 4y ago

Personally, I’d love to see robot drones remotely apply lethal force to people breaking into vehicles, but it’ll be a long time before enough red tape will be cut to make that happen.

withinboredom 4y ago
I take it you’ve never had to break into your own car before?
LatteLazy 4y ago
Why stop there. We could take out people who fail to pay their taxes or who let their firearms licenses lapse or don't follow covid quarantines.
claudiulodro 4y ago
Sounds peachy until you accidentally drop your car keys while trying to unlock your car and a robot kills you on the spot.
ryanisnan 4y ago
Kill people breaking into cars? What an excessive reaction.
DonHopkins 4y ago
I like the cut of your jib! But take it even further: How about drones applying lethal force to speeders and tailgaters, too? Also people who drive under the influence, or people who are rolling coal, or aggressively driving in convoys, or driving ICE cars and trucks with low miles per gallon or high emissions, or illegally parking in handicapped spots, or driving unnecessarily often, or when they could walk or ride their bikes or take public transit instead of driving, especially parents who drop their kids off at school in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon, when the kids could be riding bikes instead. I think you're onto something!
tj-teej 4y ago
Do you believe no member of your family has ever experienced poverty and had to steal to survive? What a callous thing to say.

thinkmcfly 4y ago

We obviously need the right to have personal lethal combat robots if the state intends to use them against the people. Let's just not go down this road and not give the police the right to use lethal combat robots

foxyv 4y ago
I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.
- cptcobalt 4y ago
  That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
  - c22 4y ago
    Imagine putting one of these things on a twitch plays.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    For drone pilots, it's rumored they actually have a lot of PTSD. You may be looking at a screen and ignore the situation now, but for healthy humans, killing someone will ALWAYS come back to haunt you, even if it's entirely justified like in self defense.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think that is pretty speculative. I think a large portion on the population would not be haunted by killing others in a wide range of justified situations, particularly when it comes to defending themselves or family from a credible threat.

cptcobalt 4y ago

Why lethal force, and not a less-than-lethal thing, like...possibly an incapacitating gas or something? I am not fan of law enforcement (in its current form in the US), but charitably, I figure law enforcement uses lethal force because they want/need to "win the race" of who gets shot first. But in a battle of human vs robot, the operator of the robot is afforded a bit more time & flexibility because they're, frankly, just a robot. You don't necessarily need to escalate to lethality. Why do we have to resort to the default human impulsive tactic of "we have to kill" and not actually use the benefit that putting a non-human device in the field could bring?

BoorishBears 4y ago
If you read the whole article, that's exactly what they're doing. The robots don't carry actual weapons, but they can carry breaching charges and tear gas. But "less-than-lethal" isn't really a thing, they can still kill people, so they're using the term lethal.

hacoo 4y ago

I'm not writing this as an argument for or against lethal-force robots, but I think there is some important context here. When people hear 'police robot' they tend to imagine ED-209 type robots blasting people, but this isn't really the case. Usually police want these robots for 'barricaded suspect' type situations. We have SWAT to deal with this, but entering an area held by armed suspects is still extremely dangerous. Also, because officers might need to shoot in order to save their own lives, they have to make decisions extremely quickly, which can lead to bad shootings or unnecessary use of lethal force. Since robots can take bigger risks than humans can, there are situations where they may allow officers to resolve a situation nonlethally where they otherwise couldn't That said, there are serious problems with police robots. The first is their ability to vastly expand police surveillance. Nonlethal robots face much less public scrutiny, but their potential to automate surveillance is terrifying to me. They also present a problematic revenue source for police departments, who might use them to ding people for parking violations, set up speed traps, etc, i.e., enforcement of minor crimes without actually improving public safety. A final criticism (relevant to lethal robots) is that, while they may improve officer safety, this doesn't always improve public safety. There are times when officers need to prioritize response speed -- Uvalde Tx being the prime example. They can create a 'it's too dangerous -- SOP is to wait for the robot' mentality -- police departments / officers need to have the courage to avoid this.

vdqtp3 4y ago
I'm pro law and order in general (although not necessarily pro law enforcement, to split hairs), but I want it to be dangerous for law enforcement to take a life. I want it to be something they have to carefully consider. I don't want it to be easy and safe. This is akin to adding more and more padding to football players...they tackle harder and harder and injuries pile up. The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use. I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety. If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force. The more officers are at risk, the more they will use lethal force.

oxfordmale 4y ago

Since it is nearly Christmas, that is an effective way to decrease the surplus population.

oxfordmale 4y ago
It was a Scrooge reference with a huge dose of sarcasm.

xrd 4y ago

That scene from robocop where the robot kills all the scientists in a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq7fW6ftlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq7fW6ftlU Anyone who approves lethal force proxy robots should have to run away from the robot and surrender to make sure they really know when a suspect is compliant.