San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
npr.orgWe 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
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.
This is extremely misleading. In the US, the ATF has stated in past rulings that electronically-fired semi-auto weapons are functionally equivalent to full auto weapons in the case where there is not manual user input per shot. (If there is manual user input per shot, it's not clear from any existing rulings and should be treated as an open question that may get you sent to prison).
Now, the ATF just makes up new rulings all the time and they aren't laws, so "legal" is always a touch fuzzy where the ATF is concerned, but you're probably going to prison for a very, very long time on a weapons charge if you make a remote-activated, electronically-fired semi auto like we're talking about here - the same way you would be if you try to make your own full auto. The exception would be the case where you are legally allowed to manufacture fully automatic weapons because you have an SOT license from the ATF. In the case of the video made in the past few months where some YouTubers mounted a rifle on a Boston Dynamics Spot, one of the YouTubers in question specifically does have an SOT, meaning they can do things that would get normal people sent to prison over an NFA violation.
At the very least, before you do something that destroys your life, call up the ATF and ask them whether what you are about to do is a dangerously bad idea legally.
Yes, you can't just make an electronic finger that pulls the trigger at 100 rounds per minute if you hold down spacebar. But I was thinking more along the lines of this:
https://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/mike-schoby/2007/09/rem...
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?)
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.
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.
Yeah they did horrible and largely unjustified shit. This just sounds like natural consequences
To be honest, I think I would be more horrified. There is something surreal and disgusting about the thought of killing in such a way. Similar to the horror of the Rube Goldbergesque devices used in the Saw films. However, if you put it through a filter to make it look like a game and pull and Ender's Game on the user, you may get the psychological distancing you mention.
Not necessarily - PTSD is an issue among drone pilots.
Imagine putting one of these things on a twitch plays.
Expand the Second Amendment to include personal robot armies
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.
That scene from robocop where the robot kills all the scientists in a demo:
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.
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?
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.
Will weaponized robots first become a thing in the West or elsewhere? First Israel, now San Francisco, a pretty dystopic future lying ahead.
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.
I guess you're right and that the type of government wouldn't preclude the development of dystopic weapons.
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.
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.
>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.
> Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force.
By that argument, there's no reason for the robot to have lethal options
fair point, I should have said "Remove the officer risk and there is less reason to use lethal force.
There are obviously times where lethal force is appropriate even when excluding officer risk. It just constitutes a minority of the uses.
Exactly - using a robot may allow officers to avoid a kill or be killed situation.
Since it is nearly Christmas, that is an effective way to decrease the surplus population.
It was a Scrooge reference with a huge dose of sarcasm.
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.
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!
Sounds peachy until you accidentally drop your car keys while trying to unlock your car and a robot kills you on the spot.
I take it you’ve never had to break into your own car before?
Kill people breaking into cars? What an excessive reaction.
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.
Do you believe no member of your family has ever experienced poverty and had to steal to survive? What a callous thing to say.
I don't believe anyone has to steal to survive. Food from government services and charity are abundant.
Nearly all theft is from drug addiction and greed.
....idiot.