There is a lot to unpack from this. On the one hand, maybe this will reduce the chance of using lethal force because the police would not have the risk of being personally attacked -- especially...
There is a lot to unpack from this. On the one hand, maybe this will reduce the chance of using lethal force because the police would not have the risk of being personally attacked -- especially assuming the RC robots are loaded with non-lethal weapons:
The San Francisco Police Department said it does not have pre-armed robots and has no plans to arm robots with guns. But the department could deploy robots equipped with explosive charges “to contact, incapacitate, or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspect” when lives are at stake, SFPD spokesperson Allison Maxie said in a statement.
On the other hand, this feels eerily like a slippery slope toward autonomous lethal robots, and that would be a historically bad line to cross.
It might, but my pessimistic brain goes a different way: supposedly things like war paint and masks were historically adopted by different cultures because taking on a new persona helps to...
maybe this will reduce the chance of using lethal force because the police would not have the risk of being personally attacked
It might, but my pessimistic brain goes a different way: supposedly things like war paint and masks were historically adopted by different cultures because taking on a new persona helps to distance a person from their actions and make it easier to overcome the natural aversion to killing. I can't think of a better way to distance someone from their actions than to make a real scene with real consequences resemble a video game on a screen.
https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/killer-robots-to-be-permitted-under-sfpd-draft-policy/ When you consider what police have considered imminent threats in the past, it's not too comforting. Perhaps...
Peskin, chair of the committee, initially attempted to limit the SFPD’s authority over the department’s robots by inserting the sentence, “Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person.”
The following week, the police struck out his suggestion with a thick red line.
It was replaced by language that codifies the department’s authority to use lethal force via robots: “Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to SFPD.”
When you consider what police have considered imminent threats in the past, it's not too comforting. Perhaps you're right that they will be less likely to feel under immediate threat if there's a robot in the field, but this places even more power under police discretion, which requires a lot of trust that hasn't really been earned.
I highly doubt the robots would ever be autonomous. That's needs-a-couple-of-decades-of-proven-military-action-with-zero-friendly-fire-casualites level of hurdle to get over before a police force...
I highly doubt the robots would ever be autonomous. That's needs-a-couple-of-decades-of-proven-military-action-with-zero-friendly-fire-casualites level of hurdle to get over before a police force would be given one.
Definitely. But I'm afraid of any path that leads that way, because eventually the technology will exist and it will only be a policy decision to use them or not.
Definitely. But I'm afraid of any path that leads that way, because eventually the technology will exist and it will only be a policy decision to use them or not.
In one week, San Francisco and the greater Bay Area rallied to tell the Board that this policy was unacceptable. That rallying cry was so loud and undeniable that it was impossible for the Board, and the world, to ignore. The campaign to stop killer robots was covered by news outlets all over the world as people waited to see what kind of precedent would be set for law enforcement. Opponents staged a rally against the policy, and over 50 local organizations signed a coalition letter demanding that the Board reverse course on killer robots, … and they did.
But even as we take this moment to celebrate, make no mistake: the fight to stop killer robots in San Francisco, and around the country, is not over.
What happens next?
The Board sent the killer robot back to its Rules Committee. We may have to debate all over again the rules for police robots in San Francisco. The community will have more opportunities to give public comments. So will the police. They may try to find a more reasonable way to sell the idea of armed robots. We will stay vigilant and engaged.
How is this any different than the military using unmanned drones to take people out? If this is anything like that there will be civilian casualties that are “factored in”. Speaking of drones, my...
How is this any different than the military using unmanned drones to take people out? If this is anything like that there will be civilian casualties that are “factored in”.
I feel like the internet discourse has been extra useless on this topic, it's all terminator and robocop jokes. Yes, y'all watched movies with killer robots before, a handful of references is...
I feel like the internet discourse has been extra useless on this topic, it's all terminator and robocop jokes. Yes, y'all watched movies with killer robots before, a handful of references is enough.
I had a kneejerk negative reaction but after reading the article I can't find anything particularly objectionable.
On the one hand I get it. Cops use robot to subdue violent person instead of putting themselves in harms way. On the other hand, cops already, seemingly indiscriminately, perform extrajudicial...
On the one hand I get it. Cops use robot to subdue violent person instead of putting themselves in harms way.
On the other hand, cops already, seemingly indiscriminately, perform extrajudicial killings damn near every day under the guise of I-feared-for-my-life excuses and giving them another tool with which to carry out these killings without there being any imminent threat to cop lives seems counter to stopping the whole problem in the first place.
The 2016 Dallas shooting during police protests was the first lethal use of a robot by police and there are very reasonable arguments on both sides as to whether or not its use was justified.
But does this necessarily cause more deaths? In a shoot-out or other violent or likely violent situation where something like this would be deployed, would a flesh and blood cop with a gun thrown...
But does this necessarily cause more deaths? In a shoot-out or other violent or likely violent situation where something like this would be deployed, would a flesh and blood cop with a gun thrown into that situation cause less fatalities at the end of it? I can only think so if the cops are all too scared to engage the situation at all... which is Uvalde, and that doesn't seem a good result either - violent situations needs to be resolved eventually.
It also seems from the article that too much focus is being put into the "lethal" criteria. While that was part of the allowance, it seems like it'll primarily be robots equipped with disabling explosives, so I'd imagine tear gas robots and the like.
In a situation like Uvalde it may have ended earlier if cowards were replaced with electronics and steel, yes. That said, the police didn't ask for robotic use of disabling explosives. They didn't...
In a situation like Uvalde it may have ended earlier if cowards were replaced with electronics and steel, yes.
That said, the police didn't ask for robotic use of disabling explosives. They didn't ask for tear gas robots, flashbang robots, rubber bullet robots, pepper paintball robots, or taser robots. They went directly for lethal robots and while a single data point is not something to solely rely upon it is still the only data point we have and that data point says that when given the option of using a robot to subdue a violent perpetrator the police didn't try tear gas, flashbangs, rubber bullets, pepper spray, or tasers. They slapped C4 to a robot and sent it to blow someone up.
They're asking for the trust to use a robot to kill someone when they deem necessary and they haven't even earned the trust to do so without a robot.
There is a lot to unpack from this. On the one hand, maybe this will reduce the chance of using lethal force because the police would not have the risk of being personally attacked -- especially assuming the RC robots are loaded with non-lethal weapons:
On the other hand, this feels eerily like a slippery slope toward autonomous lethal robots, and that would be a historically bad line to cross.
It might, but my pessimistic brain goes a different way: supposedly things like war paint and masks were historically adopted by different cultures because taking on a new persona helps to distance a person from their actions and make it easier to overcome the natural aversion to killing. I can't think of a better way to distance someone from their actions than to make a real scene with real consequences resemble a video game on a screen.
https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/killer-robots-to-be-permitted-under-sfpd-draft-policy/
When you consider what police have considered imminent threats in the past, it's not too comforting. Perhaps you're right that they will be less likely to feel under immediate threat if there's a robot in the field, but this places even more power under police discretion, which requires a lot of trust that hasn't really been earned.
I highly doubt the robots would ever be autonomous. That's needs-a-couple-of-decades-of-proven-military-action-with-zero-friendly-fire-casualites level of hurdle to get over before a police force would be given one.
Definitely. But I'm afraid of any path that leads that way, because eventually the technology will exist and it will only be a policy decision to use them or not.
I have ZERO trust in anything the American police is doing no matter what. Fuck this shit.
VICTORY! San Francisco Bans Killer Robots…For Now
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/12/victory-san-francisco-bans-killer-robotsfor-now
How is this any different than the military using unmanned drones to take people out? If this is anything like that there will be civilian casualties that are “factored in”.
Speaking of drones, my man over on Ordinary Things dropped a well timed video on the drone situation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V3eOjRhihLU
I feel like the internet discourse has been extra useless on this topic, it's all terminator and robocop jokes. Yes, y'all watched movies with killer robots before, a handful of references is enough.
I had a kneejerk negative reaction but after reading the article I can't find anything particularly objectionable.
On the one hand I get it. Cops use robot to subdue violent person instead of putting themselves in harms way.
On the other hand, cops already, seemingly indiscriminately, perform extrajudicial killings damn near every day under the guise of I-feared-for-my-life excuses and giving them another tool with which to carry out these killings without there being any imminent threat to cop lives seems counter to stopping the whole problem in the first place.
The 2016 Dallas shooting during police protests was the first lethal use of a robot by police and there are very reasonable arguments on both sides as to whether or not its use was justified.
But does this necessarily cause more deaths? In a shoot-out or other violent or likely violent situation where something like this would be deployed, would a flesh and blood cop with a gun thrown into that situation cause less fatalities at the end of it? I can only think so if the cops are all too scared to engage the situation at all... which is Uvalde, and that doesn't seem a good result either - violent situations needs to be resolved eventually.
It also seems from the article that too much focus is being put into the "lethal" criteria. While that was part of the allowance, it seems like it'll primarily be robots equipped with disabling explosives, so I'd imagine tear gas robots and the like.
In a situation like Uvalde it may have ended earlier if cowards were replaced with electronics and steel, yes.
That said, the police didn't ask for robotic use of disabling explosives. They didn't ask for tear gas robots, flashbang robots, rubber bullet robots, pepper paintball robots, or taser robots. They went directly for lethal robots and while a single data point is not something to solely rely upon it is still the only data point we have and that data point says that when given the option of using a robot to subdue a violent perpetrator the police didn't try tear gas, flashbangs, rubber bullets, pepper spray, or tasers. They slapped C4 to a robot and sent it to blow someone up.
They're asking for the trust to use a robot to kill someone when they deem necessary and they haven't even earned the trust to do so without a robot.