EFF Takes a Stance: San Francisco Shouldn’t Arm Robots

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/11/let-them-know-san-francisco-shouldnt-arm-robots

by glitcher • 4 years ago

70 69 4 years ago

You 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_Franci...

mc32• 4 years ago

Just 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.

smcg2• 4 years ago

Surely the explosions will ignore the innocent bystanders

incomingpain2• 4 years ago

How 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.

Eleison23• 4 years ago

Yes, police response is typically prescribed when people do something that is proscribed.

GartzenDeHaes2• 4 years ago

You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans.

It's remote controlled by a cop. There's no AI.

aliqot• 4 years ago

It's not asimov's laws of AI, it's the laws of robotics.

leeroyjenkins11• 4 years ago

Probably because cops don't want to show up to calls where they may have to use lethal force and possibly have their lives destroyed and decisions Monday morning QBd.

Definitely a bad idea though, I don't like the idea of a guy in a suit being able to hit a button. You also don't need to convince a robot to violate my rights and put themselves in danger while doing it.

subradios• 4 years ago

Most of the problems with policing as we see them today involve police behaving as humans do in life or death situations, even "bad shoots" have fundamental elements of reasonableness to them most of the time, whereas a robot does not have to worry about being killed by the perp or any number of things that require use of force that we consider excessive.

dsfyu404ed• 4 years ago

The 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• 4 years ago

That 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.

PaulHoule3• 4 years ago

I 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/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.

smcg2• 4 years ago

The next comment said the answer - end qualified immunity.

frankharv• 4 years ago

End Soros backed District Attorneys.

How a foreigner could influence our legal system is scary.

How's that soft on crime philosophy working out?

PM_me_your_math2• 4 years ago

"This man was armed but not immediately dangerous except to himself and to the police"

Ok, so he was dangerous. Do police officers and neighbors not have family who love them? You're either dangerous or you're not. It sounds like he was dangerous.

user39393824• 4 years ago

Maybe he was dangerous for rational reasons i.e. the fear he felt about the horrid inexcusable incarceration conditions that we in the US call "rehabilitation" with a straight face.

Of course that's debatable, and there will regardless be people who are dangerous for reasons that are irrational. It also doesn't excuse his behavior, the world has all kinds of problems and we can't accept solving them by whipping out a gun. But the topic deserves contemporaneous consideration.

One wonders how many law enforcement have been hurt, citizens hurt, or performing desperate crimes, to avoid incarceration which in the US is so horrible that many people prefer death.

PaulHoule3• 4 years ago

What I mean by that is this: if he were to come out shooting the police are well protected by the use of cover and body armor and would almost certainly be able to take him out before he caused them any harm. If the police tried to end the situation by going in they would be taking a risk which would be unacceptable. On the other hand, letting the situation drag on causes it's own problem, not only is it tying up the resources of the department and disrupting the lives of the neighbors, but it also creates a spectacle that makes the department look bad.

Adding it all up it is a "no win" situation for the police. If they use too much force they will get blamed. If they let the situation linger on, they get blamed. As it was the man died by his own hand and people did blame the police for this.

Sometimes barricade situations end up OK. One of my dad's coworkers freaked out in the 1980s over a situation with his ex-wife and was barricaded against the SWAT team, eventually he surrendered. It is sometimes possible to talk somebody like that into giving up their weapons and surrender, it probably happens most of the time. Sometimes it doesn't.

2OEH8eoCRo06• 4 years ago

Right. I keep seeing "they're only a danger to themselves" but you only really know that in retrospect.

sokoloff• 4 years ago

What was botched about it? Society’s laws and justice system says guy has to go to prison. Guy says “I’d rather die than go.” Guy makes good on his choice.

It’s not like society is going to say “ah ok, you said the magic phrase; we didn't realize you didn't want to go, so we’ll just forget all about it; sorry we bothered you…”

robbywashere_4• 4 years ago

I think he was wrongly assuming a merciful society. Not the crime and punishment one you are championing here.

PaulHoule3• 4 years ago

Many elements in the community thought it was botched. Law enforcement in particularly saw it as botched and an officer in the sheriff’s department ran a very personal and angry campaign and successfully replaced the sheriff. Plenty of People who think the cops are too violent thought it was botched too.

user39393824• 4 years ago

EFF'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.

2OEH8eoCRo06• 4 years ago

Why does that matter with regard to armed robots?

user39393824• 4 years ago

Because this post is another example where they always make themselves out to be the good guys but they have an agenda like anyone else.

easygenes2• 4 years ago

This statement to me seems to have no basis in reality and no supporting examples. The EFF is a non-profit whose interests often directly clash with that of telecoms, particularly when it comes to advocacy of online privacy vis-a-vis E2E encryption and general anti-tracking lobbying and awareness initiatives.

Their patent-busting activities are fairly focused on telecom-held patents which are overly stifling of innovation. Their general stance against telecom-enabled broad government surveillance also indirectly harms telecom bottom lines. I could go on, really.

I am genuinely curious if you can provide clear counterexamples which appear motivated by alignment to telecom interests though.

Edit: In the name of playing devil's advocate, I went searching for examples that could be construed as benefiting telecom interests. The only one I can point to from recent history is their initiative to enable "Broadband for All", which includes advocacy for public funds to go into building out fiber infrastructure. While this may benefit telcos, it also seems unambiguously to be in the public interest and particularly benefits rural and underprivileged populations at the cost of wealthy urbanized ones. [1]

I also looked for evidence of meddling in their financials, but found only a transparent 501(c)(3) which has maintained a grassroots funding, with most funds coming from small individual donors. They are also a top scoring non-profit on Charity Navigator for their financials. [2]

1: https://annualreport.eff.org/#broadband 2: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431

user39393824• 4 years ago

Here's some more info on this

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/face...

They've accepted millions of dollars in donations from organizations and their executives' foundations that they're ostensibly a watchdog for. Their being okay with the conflict of interest is reason enough for me not to trust them.

xwdv• 4 years ago

Instead 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.

2OEH8eoCRo06• 4 years ago

It 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.

nradov3• 4 years ago

These robots do not use facial recognition or make autonomous decisions about using weapons. Everything is remote controlled by a human police officer.

maxfurman• 4 years ago

I 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

GartzenDeHaes2• 4 years ago

If 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

josephcsible4• 4 years ago

What 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_ban2• 4 years ago

If 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.

josephcsible4• 4 years 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?

easygenes2• 4 years ago

This topic seems to me to be unambiguously close to their core mission of defending liberty in the face of technology.

josephcsible4• 4 years ago

What does this have to do with liberty? What rights were lost or weakened as a result of this?

1970-01-01• 4 years ago

     Robots 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.

johnhenry2• 4 years ago

Other than the reputation for police to abuse tech...

This is the main issue, right?

philippejara• 4 years ago

The 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.

whartung• 4 years ago

I 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_4• 4 years ago

This 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• 4 years ago

Police 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.

ausbah2• 4 years ago

"when police feel threatened" is too often used as an excuse for police abuse

robbywashere_4• 4 years ago

Police 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.

robbywashere_4• 4 years ago

I think the term “robot” is being used incorrectly here. Police are using military grade killing machines, not robots.

EFF Takes a Stance: San Francisco Shouldn’t Arm Robots

Related Stories