If it were actual (autonomous) robots, yes. The article is actually talking about ROVs (remote-operated vehicles). The city still needs to pay a human operator, who happens to be a moderate distance away.
It's arguably financially justified in the policing case because policing can be dangerous. Cleaning up [stuff] and sanitizing things isn't particularly dangerous, so you're basically just buying a robot to make your janitor less efficient.
yup, this is an inflammatory title that isn't what it seems on first glance. If anything, this is only a net good as remote cops won't be able to justify things based on fear for their own life
just like a dog is equated to being an officer, police robots will be considered officers and you would be prosecuted as if you had assaulted a living being, you will not be able to claim that, a machine prone to malfunction, errant design, and fasle positives, was a threat to you when you defend yourself against it.
Or in the defense of another. It wouldn’t make sense for a robot to take a life to save its own, but it might make sense for it to take a life to save your mother’s.
What happens when you fake danger to get robots to murder people for you. Or when the robot has “bugs” that kill demographics you don’t like more often.
This is a horrifically terrible idea.
It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.
I don't know why people are downvoting this. Where I live the police union boss was a known white supremacist for a decade. The police department was known to have members who tallied their kill counts competitively. For dogs and for people.
We have serious problems with accountability of law enforcement in the US.
i not sure if this completely applies here but i think police forces should not be allowed to hire ex military into general beat cops. goon squad yes, but the headset of a soldier, and the headset of a cop are very different philosophies, though both have crept close together in the years.
In the case of the bank, or the fake gun, the prankster might get shot. In the case of the robot, the pranked person might be shot. Doesn’t quite seem the same.
I don’t think you understand what GP meant. They meant faking you (as the prankster) being in danger, so the robot kills someone else (the prankee) for you.
What does that mean though? The whole 'suspect is holding a hostage as a human shield so you shoot the suspect before they kill the hostage' is a fun trope for TV and movies, but that's not how things work in real life.
Also, criminals will know the robots have these capabilities, too. If a barricaded suspect hears or sees a robot rummaging around, that could be interpreted as force escalation. Which may cause the criminal to react in unpredictable ways that increase risk to the public and police officers.
Its a preemptive measure, against what the ukraine war will spill into the civil sphere. If drug gangs get explosive suicide drones, and stack them up on some roof, callable as service, flashing the red and blue will not do.
Welcome, to the hell, that is a unchanged humanity with 300 years of tech for everyone.
And it was pretty forseeable, hell drones are cheaper then guns now.
This is what we worked for, this is what we fought for. We destroyed humanitys ability to keep the peace.
What a interesting war of all against all this will be, once the planets ceeiling comes down.
What a fitting, ironic place to start it off, then Los Angeles.
Any apologist, wanna take the lead and "This is actually a good thing.."wing it?
Do we get religous as defense, believing in the new human being?
Here's a half hearted attempt... this is actually a good thing, because then there will be less people on the planet and less garbage, pollution, destruction of ecosystems, and everyone will be richer.
Presumably, few people will try to unleash drones on nature, and even if they do, they will only have minimal effect given the enormity of the planet. On the other hand, currently we have factory farming where billions of animals are brought up in abysmal conditions to feed the population meat, they live on an ecological credit card, and it's probably far more destructive in the end through famines or just general ecosystem collapse.
Seeing what's coming from that, you might actually consider the threat nuclear war to be comforting...?
Yes, these robots are pretty slow and relatively difficult to deploy. It is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario where "loss of life to members of
the public or officers is imminent", but police still somehow have time to deploy and pilot this thing into a crime scene from a safe distance. If they had time to do that, then there wasn't really an imminent danger.
Realistically, this will be used when someone has barricaded themselves in a house or something and is having a standoff with police, and they've gotten tired of standing around outside and would rather send their robot in to shoot the person so they can go home.
It's kind of predictable though. Let's look at another profession where lives are at stake: Doctors. One would think their ethics would prevent them from pushing C-sections and induction on women in labour for selfish reasons but birth rates on weekends have been steadily falling in western countries.
Yeah this happened in the Dallas police shooting a few years back. The suspect was holed up in a parking structure so they sent a bomb disposal robot with a bomb attached and blew the dude up.
> You could probably hire 3+ cops for the price of one patrolling robot
You can’t hire them because a lot of people no longer want to serve as a police officer due to various cultural and societal changes in recent years. Hence, the inevitable rise of automation and AI in law enforcement. The police shortages have been here before Floyd and the pandemic
San Francisco is weird. My wife and I enjoyed our visit last month where we sat at an outdoor cafe and watched people stealing bikes and furniture (yes, seriously).
I am going to be less entertained by watching murder robots wandering the streets, so perhaps I will eat elsewhere next time.
On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. . . .
Following the shooting, Johnson fled inside a building on the campus of El Centro College. Police followed him there, and a standoff ensued. In the early hours of July 8, police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot. The robot charged into Johnson's legs and detonated, which killed him. It was the first time U.S. law enforcement used a robot to kill a suspect.
Isn't this the same city that declared policing racist and made shoplifting anything less than $1000 a misdemenoar, whose DAs refuse to prosecute crime, and who declared bail discriminatory?
I am very very very confused about what is going on in SF right now.
Imagine if you will a police budget, police resources and jail space. Now imagine cities where every available police officer in the city is processing paperwork for misdemeanor theft. Its untenable by any means. There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors. How many officer hours would it take to process a stolen bike report, investigate and then arrest someone. Then bring the DA in on that stolen bike case. This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian. If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately.
> If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately.
It may have been sold as being cheaper, but it is not. Now there are roving gangs who can steal tens of thousands of dollars of merchandise in moments and will beat or kill people to pursue their crime.
Not only is it not saving public resources but it's putting stores out of business and injuring people.
> This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian.
Dystopia, check. Leftist dream, check.
> There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors
That's for the taxpayers to decide, not for the government to present as a reason for overriding them. At this point I bet they feel they can't afford not to enforce laws.
That seems like something people in SF tell themselves about why it can't be any other way. But deterrence works. If petty crimes are being aggressively policed the the volume of crime will be much lower. The volume is only high because criminals know there are no practical repercussions.
Or, closer to home, examine theft rates in cities which recently raised the grand larceny threshold (looking at you Oregon and Washington…) and the explosion of misdemeanor theft. My employer (a fortune 100 retailer) is actively exploring breaking leases as shrink rates have approached 50% in some locations.
I must wonder then how the rest of the world, heck even the rest of the States, can get by with prosecuting also petty crimes, yes even stolen bicycles. But this means asking the difficult questions I guess...
"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 the SFPD."
Craig Strete[1] has a short story about "womb-cops" that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and "burn down" people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high.
> Since there is no legal precedent ruling that remote robot kills are unconstitutional, officers piloting these robots will be immune from prosecution.
Your premise as framed would only support the conclusion that ibdividual would enjoy civil immunity under the QI doctrine. They could still be criminally prosecuted, and their agency would not be civilly immune.
I really wish we'd draw some harder lines between "robot" (autonomous), versus "drones" (remote controlled by a human). The article is in fact discussing drones, not robots, so the salient point [to misquote a phrase from the gun control debate] "drones don't kill people, drone operators kill people" - the SFPD is asking here for a new and safer way to murder civilians.
> "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 the SFPD."
See? Nothing there. Go about your business.
> Though robots can potentially be equipped with explosive charges to breach certain structures, they would only be used in extreme circumstances
See? It'll be only in extreme circumstances.
Killing someone should be difficult. Maybe it should even endanger your own life. Otherwise it's too easy to press the button.
73 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] thread[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFvqDaFpXeM
It's arguably financially justified in the policing case because policing can be dangerous. Cleaning up [stuff] and sanitizing things isn't particularly dangerous, so you're basically just buying a robot to make your janitor less efficient.
Since these "robots" are not autonomous, you can substitute "guns" for "robots" in the above sentence. The sentence remains true but becomes banal.
The big ethical difference is that the remote trigger puller can no longer justify the act by a threat to their own life, only to other lives.
Killing people remotely when you are completely safe just seems like straight up murder.
This is a horrifically terrible idea.
It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.
We have serious problems with accountability of law enforcement in the US.
So what, you go up to a bank, with a fake gun, and then say "lul, I was just robbing you as a prank bro?"
Probably the same thing will happen to you, as would happen to you right now, if you pointed a fake gun at someone.
The person pointing a fake gun at someone, would be the one shot either way, even if a robot did the shooting.
Also, criminals will know the robots have these capabilities, too. If a barricaded suspect hears or sees a robot rummaging around, that could be interpreted as force escalation. Which may cause the criminal to react in unpredictable ways that increase risk to the public and police officers.
To be clear though, that's all I'm saying. I'm not making a statement about my overall thoughts on the US's police system.
Welcome, to the hell, that is a unchanged humanity with 300 years of tech for everyone. And it was pretty forseeable, hell drones are cheaper then guns now.
This is what we worked for, this is what we fought for. We destroyed humanitys ability to keep the peace.
What a interesting war of all against all this will be, once the planets ceeiling comes down.
What a fitting, ironic place to start it off, then Los Angeles.
Any apologist, wanna take the lead and "This is actually a good thing.."wing it?
Do we get religous as defense, believing in the new human being?
Presumably, few people will try to unleash drones on nature, and even if they do, they will only have minimal effect given the enormity of the planet. On the other hand, currently we have factory farming where billions of animals are brought up in abysmal conditions to feed the population meat, they live on an ecological credit card, and it's probably far more destructive in the end through famines or just general ecosystem collapse.
Seeing what's coming from that, you might actually consider the threat nuclear war to be comforting...?
If you seek, you shall find.
If you're looking for reasons why the world is burning down - you'll find them in every headline.
Not an apologist, but you could have at least gotten the city correct in your cynical diatribe.
Adapt or die.
Evolution is a thing.
Your complaint reminds me of a bacteria complaining about all the oxygen.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event )
Realistically, this will be used when someone has barricaded themselves in a house or something and is having a standoff with police, and they've gotten tired of standing around outside and would rather send their robot in to shoot the person so they can go home.
Those robots need to be bought, then they need an operator and at least some maintenance.
You could probably hire 3+ cops for the price of one patrolling robot, or try to actually train those you have in sensible law enforcement.
There are better uses of the money basically everywhere.
You can’t hire them because a lot of people no longer want to serve as a police officer due to various cultural and societal changes in recent years. Hence, the inevitable rise of automation and AI in law enforcement. The police shortages have been here before Floyd and the pandemic
I am going to be less entertained by watching murder robots wandering the streets, so perhaps I will eat elsewhere next time.
Following the shooting, Johnson fled inside a building on the campus of El Centro College. Police followed him there, and a standoff ensued. In the early hours of July 8, police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot. The robot charged into Johnson's legs and detonated, which killed him. It was the first time U.S. law enforcement used a robot to kill a suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...
/s
I am very very very confused about what is going on in SF right now.
It may have been sold as being cheaper, but it is not. Now there are roving gangs who can steal tens of thousands of dollars of merchandise in moments and will beat or kill people to pursue their crime.
Not only is it not saving public resources but it's putting stores out of business and injuring people.
> This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian.
Dystopia, check. Leftist dream, check.
> There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors
That's for the taxpayers to decide, not for the government to present as a reason for overriding them. At this point I bet they feel they can't afford not to enforce laws.
Or, closer to home, examine theft rates in cities which recently raised the grand larceny threshold (looking at you Oregon and Washington…) and the explosion of misdemeanor theft. My employer (a fortune 100 retailer) is actively exploring breaking leases as shrink rates have approached 50% in some locations.
"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 the SFPD."
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete
Your premise as framed would only support the conclusion that ibdividual would enjoy civil immunity under the QI doctrine. They could still be criminally prosecuted, and their agency would not be civilly immune.
> "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 the SFPD."
See? Nothing there. Go about your business.
> Though robots can potentially be equipped with explosive charges to breach certain structures, they would only be used in extreme circumstances
See? It'll be only in extreme circumstances.
Killing someone should be difficult. Maybe it should even endanger your own life. Otherwise it's too easy to press the button.
Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33726496 - Nov 2022 (209 comments)
Robots authorized to kill in SFPD draft policy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33720719 - Nov 2022 (11 comments)