San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/23/23475817/san-francisco-police-department-robots-deadly-force

by laktak • 4 years ago

55 86 4 years ago

theverge.com

ranguna2• 4 years ago

Obligatory YouTube video https://youtu.be/0rliFQ0qyAM

iforgotpassword• 4 years ago

I thought of this one: https://youtu.be/ZFvqDaFpXeM

scandox• 4 years ago

Indeed. I saw this at a rather too early 12 but it definitely influences my behaviour at work.

toofy2• 4 years ago

i love binging through I Did A Thing's videos. good choice!

ranguna2• 4 years ago

Just found this channel some days ago, it was a good few hours of a Sunday spent.

hardware2win• 4 years ago

It seems like it is remotely controlled by human

Cool

random3142• 4 years ago

You don't have to be at the scene anymore to kill George floyd.

gonzo41• 4 years ago

There'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-ope...

Anyway, this sounds like a very terrible idea.

xiphias2• 4 years ago

Is there a way for people to know if those robots with machine guns are controlled by the police or a terrorist mass murderer?

ls152• 4 years ago

Afterwards, maybe

random3142• 4 years ago

Or/and

borissk2• 4 years ago

One person's terrorist mass murderer is another person's hero - e.g. one Mr Putin.

ben_w2• 4 years ago

Given 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?

hestefisk4• 4 years ago

/var/log/messages

hdjjhhvvhga• 4 years ago

As 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• 4 years ago

Given 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• 4 years 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.

simiones2• 4 years ago

Policing 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.

ls152• 4 years 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

simiones2• 4 years ago

Yeah, but it will be all ok, it will only be a beta!

krapp2• 4 years ago

It may not be a bad idea in a country in which the police can be trusted, but that country would not be the United States.

winReInstall3• 4 years ago

Imagine 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.

namaria2• 4 years ago

Exponential 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?

winReInstall3• 4 years ago

It 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, 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• 4 years ago

Unless 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.

rapsey• 4 years ago

Fortunately what we have learned is that terrorists at the end of the day are pretty dumb. People capable of doing mass damage are not ones to soccumb to extremist ideology.

mettamage• 4 years ago

Not yet, but 100 years from now they'll be a lot more tech savvy. If I look who's capable of using a computer at all to browse the web, it's a lot more people than I'd have predicted in the early 90s

onion2k2• 4 years ago

Fortunately what we have learned is that terrorists at the end of the day are pretty dumb.

Is that because the ones we don't think are dumb get called "freedom fighters"?

pjc505• 4 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting : "fired more than 1,000 bullets, killing 60 people[a] and wounding at least 413"

(and of course the big outlier in terrorism, 9/11)

winReInstall3• 4 years ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/1...

pjc505• 4 years ago

a terrorist cell, which has no leader, no members, no financiers but is able to attack anyway.

This is called "stochastic terrorism". It has carried out at least two attacks in the United States in the past week. Doesn't require fancy technology, just very effective ideological poisoning.

trompetenaccoun4• 4 years ago

Which attacks are you referring to, out of interest?

remarkEon• 4 years ago

“Stochastic terrorism” is a made up term, meant to give the extremely online a mechanism to ascribe group blame to a tragic event perpetrated by a deranged individual. It’s an awesomely Orwellian term, because now people who commit otherwise random violence can be charged with terrorism if the state so chooses.

maxbaines2• 4 years ago

All that comes to mind is Robocop, based in Detroit if I remember correctly.

harywilke• 4 years ago

Enforcement Droid 209

maxbaines2• 4 years ago

"You have 20 seconds to comply"

graderjs3• 4 years ago

I am a fan of the film chappie by Blomkamp

BLKNSLVR4• 4 years ago

Man, I felt the feels for Chappie.

Elysium also offered some interesting scenarios on automated policing.

hestefisk4• 4 years ago

LIST PRIME DIRECTIVES

1. SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST 2. PROTECT THE INNOCENT 3. UPHOLD THE LAW

—- 4. CONFIDENTIAL (blink blink blink)

gspetr2• 4 years ago

Yes, I've been thinking of that scene as well:

RoboCop: Director's Cut | REMASTERED - ED-209 Malfunction Scene (1080p)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFvqDaFpXeM

pacifika• 4 years ago

The robots’ controllers aren’t under any threat at any time.

InCityDreams• 4 years ago

They 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.

luckylion2• 4 years ago

Tell 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.

tgv2• 4 years ago

That slope slips all the way to Hell.

rdl• 4 years ago

Arguably 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.

BLKNSLVR4• 4 years ago

I 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.

toofy2• 4 years ago

i 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• 4 years ago

I wanted to say "you can just make it cable controlled", but then I guess you can always hack into machine controlling it...

pjc505• 4 years ago

The 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.

borissk2• 4 years ago

There'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.

pjc505• 4 years 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.

Balero2• 4 years ago

Well, they couldn't afford/acquire a musket, which if they could on a wide scale, would probably have effected their freedom.

tgv2• 4 years ago

It'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.

Balero2• 4 years ago

E.g. in Ancient Greece almost any free citizen could afford to buy the top weapon of the time (an iron or bronze sword)

You have an historical mistake that supports your argument here.

Bronze weapons were very expensive, due to needing tin which could not be mined locally and needed to be traded for from as far away, such as the balkans, Germany or even Britain [0]. Because of this it was only available for the rich, ie the rulers and their supporters. Bronze age Greece[1] was not democratic, and was based around kingdoms, ruled by those who had access to the bronze weapons.

The later more 'equal' (but by no means equal at all, simply more so than ruled by tyrants, they still had slaves and oppressed lower classes. It's just there was a more numerous upper/middle class) greek states were in the Iron Age. Iron was much easier and cheaper to make as it was available in large quantities locally. This lead to to the iron age weapons and armour being much more widely spread [2] and therefore they had less powerful dictators.

Not all Iron age Greek states were democracies, and those that were would not seem like fair democracies today. But partially because of the more easily accessible weapons, the power in these states was less centralised than it was when the weapons were predominantly bronze.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancie.... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages

goodpoint• 4 years ago

You account of history is so wrong and biased I don't even know where to start.

vt100• 4 years ago

Imagine the robot shoots an innocent person because it misidentified an object as a gun.

johannes1234321• 4 years ago

"Sorry, software bug, happens"

trabant00• 4 years ago

Imagine reading the article to see this is not about autonomous robots.

BLKNSLVR4• 4 years ago

If 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).

trompetenaccoun4• 4 years ago

A 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• 4 years 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• 4 years ago

I 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.

PedroBatista• 4 years ago

Is 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• 4 years ago

As 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• 4 years ago

I 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• 4 years ago

Full Self Deadliness

hestefisk4• 4 years ago

“Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it works or not.”

Tozen• 4 years ago

American 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-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• 4 years ago

Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33726496 - Nov 2022 (207 comments)

San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

Related Stories