[HN Gopher] Don't Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled...
___________________________________________________________________
Don't Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and
Drones
Author : DiabloD3
Score : 186 points
Date : 2021-07-18 17:03 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| tpmx wrote:
| The Dallas police did that in 2016:
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/12/us/dallas-police-robot-c4...
| notatelloshill wrote:
| with enough check and balances I think this is only a positive.
| It will lead to faster and more accurate police work.
|
| It will also take the "life was in danger" aspect away from
| policing in which people are killed unncessarily. A drone can
| target a leg of a suspect without having anyones life in danger.
|
| The police are not moral arbiters. They are policy enforcers. So
| you basically have a robot that has a soul and fears mortality
| going around right now. This is more dangerous than actually
| having a robot do the job.
|
| Some police are community protectors but that has gone the way of
| the dodo bird a long time ago. Especially in big cities.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Unfortunately the cake is already in the oven in this. There will
| almost certainly be major changes to civil liberties coming as a
| result of the "capital insurrection".
|
| If you want to fight against police overreach, you kindof have to
| fight against it even when it comes for your enemies.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| You guys are way too late.
|
| The police already have armed robots. Have already used them to
| kill. And police overreach is already a thing.
|
| All of it happened decades before the capitol insurrection. I'm
| surprised so many seem unaware of this.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| They're about 30 years too late on this one. Police and the FBI
| have been using EOD robots with shotguns for a long time now and
| have even killed a few people with them. In a hostage situation
| or standoff, they'll send in the robot with food or a phone
| hanging from the arm, which has a Remington semi-automatic
| shotgun attached to the base. Ruby Ridge is one of the more
| famous examples.
| millzlane wrote:
| The guy in Texas was the first IIRC killed with an explosive.
| https://www.cnet.com/news/dallas-shooter-killed-by-bomb-equi...
| frickinLasers wrote:
| And that appears to be the first case on US soil where a
| robot was actually used to kill.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| It's not. Police agencies have taken care to avoid
| headlines that might raise unpleasant questions about
| killing suspects with military robots, so it's not
| something that's easily googleable.
| TroisM wrote:
| Never too late to change how things are done.
| frickinLasers wrote:
| The primary purpose of that shotgun is IED/UXO disruption,
| ostensibly. It's unfortunate that the robots have been used as
| weapons, and that people aren't in prison for it. But I think
| arming AI-equipped drones specifically to kill is a much more
| worrisome threat.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| I mean, I get that some jargon is clear to those who have an
| interest in the topic. But how the hell is it acceptable to
| use sth like "IED/UXO" on an article about ethics? This is so
| obviously not a well known term (and not searchable).
|
| My mind boggles.
| trhway wrote:
| >But how the hell is it acceptable to use sth like
| "IED/UXO" on an article about ethics?
|
| how the hell do you expect to understand an article on
| autonomous drones ethics without knowing that IED/UXO
| means? It makes obvious that you lack basic knowledge of
| factual landscape in the domain, and how do you expect to
| understand ethics of the domain without basic factual
| knowledge of the domain?
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I assume you aren't American, Canadian, or Western
| European. The news constantly discussed IEDs in the context
| of the Iraq and Afghan wars and UXO is used whenever a bomb
| is discovered leftover from one of the World Wars.
|
| It is also very searchable, at least to me. The results
| returned are very relevant.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=IED%2FUXO&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA8
| 5...
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Improvised Explosive
| Device (IED), Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). Civilian police
| use of robotics started with EOD robots, often borrowed
| from the military.
| kurthr wrote:
| I'm guessing you're not in the US (or UK) where IED and
| PTSD acronyms have been used so much in the context of
| physical and psychological injury in the Middle East tha
| they are pop culture hard to avoid knowing. Certainly, in
| the US, the first term that pops up in a search for IED is:
|
| IED
|
| /,ie'de/
|
| noun: a simple bomb made and used by unofficial or
| unauthorized forces.
|
| Danger UXB (UneXplodedBomb) was a popular British drama 30+
| years ago.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Better robots than people in that position.
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| Is that a joke?
| gravstar wrote:
| If you're referring to the 1991 Idaho - Ruby Ridge then no,
| robotics were not deployed.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| Weaver's testimony to Congress:
|
| "Come out and get the telephone, and later on I got a chance
| to look at that robot sitting out there, and it had a sawed-
| off 12-gauge shotgun on the side of it, bolted to it, aimed
| aright at the telephone, which later they said was empty. I
| do not believe that. I will never believe that. If they want
| to negotiate with you and they honestly want you to come out
| and pick up a telephone, they are not going to have a shotgun
| there, because they know if I see that I am not going to come
| out after that telephone. They was hoping I did not see it,
| and the way it was aimed at the house, I did not see it the
| first time I looked at it. The second time I looked at it, I
| saw the hole of that barrel pointing up, and I got to looking
| better, and I said, holy cow, that is a sawed-off shotgun
| pointed at the telephone. I did not see it the first time."
| throwawayswede wrote:
| We shouldn't allow anyone to do this, not just the police.
| Although it already happens, and the American military already
| does this internationally. Drone attacks flourished under Obama's
| administration basically, look up the incident around 2013 when
| US military drone fired at a wedding convoy in Yemen and killed
| 10+ people.
| drran wrote:
| Hey, officer, send this guy to do drone job manually.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Drone attacks increased with every president. The one after
| Obama also set his own record and even tried to hide them from
| reports.
| thefounder wrote:
| If the US doesn't do it the others will(Russia, China etc).
| throwawayswede wrote:
| That's an empty argument. Criticizing American military and
| government doesn't mean you can't criticize others.
| thefounder wrote:
| My point is that the enemy would gain a tech and tactical
| advantage if you restrict the usage of robotics in your
| army.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| > _But police technologies malfunction all the time._
|
| > _When, inevitably, a robot unjustifiably injures or kills
| someone--who would be held responsible?_
|
| That Robocop scene where ED209 kills that poor executive used to
| be a joke. Though now that I think of it, Paul Verhoeven was
| probably serious.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5NAswnEewg
| glogla wrote:
| It is a perfect moment since you can see the low level people
| panicking while the true bosses are like "ugh, this is going be
| so annoying to fix", completely uncaring about murdering
| someone.
|
| What a wonderful glimpse into corporate soul.
| [deleted]
| robohoe wrote:
| If the police can do it, so should private citizens. If not, then
| neither the police should do it.
| jMyles wrote:
| This simple calculus needs to be the basis of police armament
| generally, not just robotics.
| underseacables wrote:
| I'm less worried about the police doing this than I am rogue
| nation, groups, and individuals. It's only a matter of time until
| Hamas launches an armed, low flying, autonomous drone swarm in
| the heart of Tel Aviv. The book "Kill Decision" by Daniel Suarez
| convinced me that we have less to fear from government and more
| to fear from private actors when it comes to lethal drones.
|
| Actually, I'm really surprised it hasn't happened already given
| the low cost.
| Retric wrote:
| Drones should be much easier to intercept than rocket /
| artillery shell attacks which have become significantly less
| effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
| mdorazio wrote:
| This is not clear at all. Rockets and artillery shells follow
| high trajectory, extremely predictable ballistic paths. If
| your radar is good enough to accurately spot the rocket or
| shell against the entirely blank backdrop of sky, you can
| shoot it down. Drones, on the other hand, can fly low to the
| ground and move in unpredictable ways if needed so that 1)
| radar can't find them easily, and 2) even if it does, your
| counter weaponry will probably have trouble doing much.
|
| A lot of anti-drone weapons today are based on the idea of
| disrupting drone-to-controller comms to force them to return
| or land, but if you setup your drone on a one-way trip with
| zero need to communicate to a controller, your countering
| options get limited pretty quickly.
| virtuabhi wrote:
| Terrorist organizations have started drone attacks -
| https://www.livemint.com/news/india/jammu-airport-attack-fro...
| throwawayswede wrote:
| Israel uses "AI" controlled drones with no human contact to
| terrorize people in Gaza. Palestinians absolutely already
| manufacturer and deploy simple drones against Israeli military
| targets. Israeli terrorist army force (in a euphemistic
| doublespeak manner called defense force) does way more damage
| against civilians while Palestinians resist against an
| occupier.
| csilverman wrote:
| Hamas is already doing this:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2021/05/14/hamas-...
|
| I'm only surprised we're not seeing more of this from domestic
| terrorist groups. Anyone with minimal technical skill could
| probably order a hobbyist drone, attach something nasty, and
| figure out how to remotely detonate it with a phone.
|
| Also, I suspect that arguing cops shouldn't be able to use
| armed robots for extreme situations like hostage standoffs--
| when they already use robots for bomb disposal and
| reconnaissance, to say nothing of long-standing measures like
| deploying snipers on rooftops--is going to be a tough case to
| make. Might have more success trying to limit the situations
| where they can use armed robots--say, a hostage situation or
| ongoing terror attack, rather than shadowing a protest.
| magicsmoke wrote:
| Using drones wasn't going to dramatically increase the damage
| someone like the Boston Marathon bomber did or decrease his
| chances of getting caught. Would be domestic terrorists are
| deterred by the fact that they are domestic and will
| eventually be arrested given the dragnet of internet and CCTV
| surveillance we all live under, not because they can't
| somehow fly a bomb into a stadium instead of leaving a
| pressure cooker backpack. Drone availability is way down on
| the list of things a normal person would consider before
| deciding to pick up domestic terrorism. Top of that list is
| probably whether they can win a shootout with the police
| force when a dozen swat vans inevitably show up at their
| address.
| rootsudo wrote:
| "I'm only surprised we're not seeing more of this from
| domestic terrorist groups. Anyone with minimal technical
| skill could probably order a hobbyist drone, attach something
| nasty, and figure out how to remotely detonate it with a
| phone."
|
| Me too, it is not high tech at all, basic in doing a remote
| circuit and they now even have "farming" drones which you can
| replace the main chemical with whatever you'd want...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn7Q4oIrP3I
| hjek wrote:
| > Hamas is already doing this
|
| And the IDF too: https://www.thedailybeast.com/israel-is-
| sending-robots-with-...
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" I'm less worried about the police doing this than I am rogue
| nation, groups, and individuals."_
|
| Governments have killed exponentially more of their own people
| throughout history in genocides, pogroms, civil wars,
| starvations, and so on than have ever been killed by rogue
| nations, non-government groups or individuals.
| TroisM wrote:
| I like this example, the Slaughterbots:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I always thought targeted assassination will be the primary use
| of autonomous weapons. And since I don't really see any obvious
| means of authoritative attribution, I'm not really sure how you
| would stop it? I think it will be ultra popular. Not only with
| cartels looking to rid themselves of annoyances in Mexico. Also
| with people looking to remove any mayor they don't like, or any
| police chief they don't like, or, more commonly, any boss they
| don't like, or even any neighbor they don't like. Most people
| in society would be almost a free target. Combine that with the
| fact that most people would have access to this tech and I
| could see tit-for-tat killings going on all over the place.
|
| I'm really interested in seeing what law enforcement and
| military thinkers are working on to solve this problem. It
| really will be fascinating to watch this space, because I could
| see it getting out of hand on a time scale shorter than we'd at
| first anticipate.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I remember listening to a guy on Business Radio, who was
| operating in this space. His business model was basically
| making sure that drones can't be easily disabled, jammed and
| so on along with the other side of the coin where 'bad guy' (
| I so hate that phrase ) drones are contained quickly.
|
| That was two years ago. I assume this is part of the reason
| some drone regulations were implemented.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| YOU may not be, but if I, or my loved ones lived in a high-
| patrol area known for police brutality, I certainly would be
| worried.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| I am not sure I agree with the EFF on this one.
|
| If the future of cars is autonomous to save lives, then the
| future of police could be the same for the same reasons.
|
| The 1951 version of the The Day the Earth Stood Still, with an
| all-powerful robot GORT that neutralized human aggression left an
| imprint on me. I honestly think a legion of GORTs will be better
| than a legion of humans - if only because I believe the end of
| the line for robots will be significantly better than human
| potential.
|
| John Henry 'loses' against the machine in the end, now matter how
| much we root for him.
| jMyles wrote:
| > If the future of cars is autonomous to save lives, then the
| future of police could be the same for the same reasons.
|
| The presumption that there is such a thing as "the future of
| police" is worrisome. The now nearly 200-year experiment of
| designating a tiny subset of the population as exclusively
| responsible for public safety and law enforcement goes very
| poorly. The abolitionist movement is as strong today as any
| time since the conclusion of the American Civil War.
|
| When do we start getting serious about visualizing a future
| without police?
| parineum wrote:
| > When do we start getting serious about visualizing a future
| without police?
|
| There will always be rules, people will always break them and
| some group of specialists will always be trusted with extra
| responsibility to deal with those people.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| But that doesn't have to look anything like what we have
| now. Arguably, _courts_ meet your description.
| parineum wrote:
| When a man comes home and finds his wife in bed with
| another man whom he then murders, how will the courts
| find that man and bring them to justice?
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Policing is far superior to what it replaced.
|
| Previously it was the army, mob rule, or mafia rule
| (sometimes legally sanctioned like a Lord of an area).
| jMyles wrote:
| It's 2021 - well into the age of the internet.
|
| What relevance has the practices which police ostensibly
| supplanted to the matter of how we handle public safety
| post-abolition?
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Compared to where we were it is an amazing success. There
| is a high standard for replacing it with something else.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Those who say they want a future without police are often
| told to "move to Somalia," or some such place where local
| warlords provide the only semblance of law.
|
| Those who say they want to increase authoritarian influence
| are told the same thing.
|
| This makes me think we are probably close to the optimum
| solution. The police just need to be held accountable for
| their actions. Right now, that seems to be the biggest
| weakness in the system. It's unrealistic to expect perfection
| from the police or from members of any other profession, but
| when things do go wrong, it takes negative feedback to
| correct it, and the police unions have proven exceptionally
| skilled at breaking the corrective feedback loop in multiple
| places.
| glogla wrote:
| The police abolitionism is much stronger in the US, where you
| can trace lineage of police to slavers and union-busting hit
| squads, than in the rest of the civilized world.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| This is accurate. From Time's "How the U.S. Got Its Police
| Force"[1]:
|
| > _The first publicly funded, organized police force with
| officers on duty full-time was created in Boston in 1838.
| Boston was a large shipping commercial center, and
| businesses had been hiring people to protect their property
| and safeguard the transport of goods from the port of
| Boston to other places, says Potter. These merchants came
| up with a way to save money by transferring to the cost of
| maintaining a police force to citizens by arguing that it
| was for the "collective good."
|
| > _In the South, however, the economics that drove the
| creation of police forces were centered not on the
| protection of shipping interests but on the preservation of
| the slavery system.*
|
| Police were union-busting, as well:
|
| > For example, businessmen in the late 19th century had
| both connections to politicians and an image of the kinds
| of people most likely to go on strike and disrupt their
| workforce. So it's no coincidence that by the late 1880s,
| all major U.S. cities had police forces. Fears of labor-
| union organizers and of large waves of Catholic, Irish,
| Italian, German, and Eastern European immigrants, who
| looked and acted differently from the people who had
| dominated cities before, drove the call for the
| preservation of law and order, or at least the version of
| it promoted by dominant interests.
|
| [1] https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
| plank_time wrote:
| The militarization of the police in the US is a huge problem that
| is out of control. I was extremely disappointed that Obama didn't
| not only rein in this militarization but effectively made it
| worse. We are now having to deal with a generation of cops who
| think they are GI Joe but don't have the training. This is why so
| many unarmed people are getting shot by the cops, because they
| start their day thinking they are in Fallujah instead of
| Cleveland.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I don't understand why normal community police are armed at
| all. There's absolutely no need for it.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's a sad fact in the USA that you might encounter an armed
| criminal almost anywhere. I have personally seen a bunch of
| crimes involving gunfire, rather than mere brandishing of
| weapons.
|
| On the other hand, police carry a _lot_ of weapons, typically
| a handgun, pepper spray, a taser, a baton, and a heavy
| switchblade knife, plus a shotgun or rifle in the car. But
| they 're relatively poorly trained and (even taking police
| claims at face value) deaths of civilians have resulted from
| confusion involving use of the wrong weapon.
|
| Another factor is that urban areas are often policed by
| people who live in surrounding suburban towns, and end up
| feeling like they're going to work in a war zone every day
| because they are not embedded in the communities they
| ostensibly serve.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The vast majority of police _never_ actually need their
| weapons. So why are they routinely carrying them?
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-
| lo...
|
| There's tons of dangerous things we _could_ carry around
| just in case, but we don 't because they'd be seen as
| aggressive.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Same reason I have 3 fire extinguishers although I've
| never had a fire situation; you don't want to find
| yourself without if you suddenly need it.
|
| Aer they over-armed, poorly trained, and often
| unreasonably paranoid? Yes. Being armed doesn't defend
| one against being surprised, and radios have saved far
| more police lives than guns on hips. But the work is by
| nature unpredictable, and the US is an unusually heavily
| armed society.
|
| You're going to have a hard time recruiting or getting
| people to pay taxes for unarmed security. That gap is
| filled to some extent by community volunteers, but sadly
| that's not a very effective response in political terms.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| This same argument could ostensibly be extended to
| anyone. There are armed criminals everywhere, why aren't
| you carrying ${armory} on you at all times?
|
| It seems to me like a police station, as well as select
| trained officers could be stocked with lethal weapons,
| while regular patrol officers carry nonlethals. Cops
| generally do not need a gun to pull someone over for
| speeding. If they are pursing someone known to be armed,
| it makes sense to do so.
|
| Much like I don't carry my laptop at all times, there are
| appropriate tools for appropriate situations and I'd like
| to see that extended to police.
| smegger001 wrote:
| >>This same argument could ostensibly be extended to
| anyone. There are armed criminals everywhere, why aren't
| you carrying ${armory} on you at all times?
|
| Many people do. I regularly see people walking around
| open carrying firearms in my rural town in WA state.
| People will have gun on their hip walking around Walmart
| or getting coffee at here.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Training isn't the issue, it's the lack of accountability.
| Military members are under the threat of being court martialed
| and spending time in military prison. They know they have less
| rights in military court than they would as civilians, and that
| punishment can be harsh.
|
| Cops, on the other hand, know that the system will bend over
| backwards to accommodate whatever transgression or crime they
| commit. They can and do act with impunity, because they're
| actively aware of that impunity. They know that if they get
| caught, in the worst case scenario, they'll get a paid
| vacation, their boss will allow them to resign, and they'll
| have to work one town over.
| craftinator wrote:
| I'll second this. In the military (or at least in the Marine
| Corps, from my experience), the person to your left and right
| is not only there to help you, but to hold you accountable
| too. It's started early in training that you don't "let your
| buddy off the hook", you f** them up if they do something
| stupid. The goal is to uncover all the dirt and get it
| cleaned up, not to hide it. And your buddy will testify
| against you, because they know it's the right thing to do,
| and you'll spend years in the brigg. It's a hard culture, but
| it's built to be self-filtering, self-cleaning. That's where
| the idea of honor comes from.
|
| From everything that I've witnessed and heard, police culture
| is the polar opposite. You "do favors", "hook each other up",
| and "overlook mistakes". All of this breeds the bacteria,
| rather than killing it off.
| SMAAART wrote:
| Here's the "problem": on a worldwide level there are bad actors
| who will for sure deploy armed robots. Period.
|
| So, do we (we = any country in the world) want to be ahead of
| this technology or behind? Leading or lagging?
|
| Because the leaders will have the power to overthrow the
| laggards, and if history has served us as a teacher, if it MIGH
| happen (capability) it WILL happen.
|
| Add to the mix overpopulation and the related scarcity of
| resourced (e.g.: water, protein rich food) and now we have an
| interesting GLOBAL Game Theory case.
| aurizon wrote:
| Aye, There's the rub - these bad actors who have already
| demonstrated the use of AI enhanced robots/drones that we must
| face a defeat or be beaten. Make no bones about it, there are
| latter day hitlers out there running countries like Iran, North
| Korea etc - much as we dislike the concept we can not allow
| them to defeat us.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The police don't respond to foreign threats, they enforce laws
| domestically and locally. Armed police drones aren't going to
| be used against foreign threats, they'll be used against
| everyday US residents while enforcing domestic and local laws.
| sneak wrote:
| There must not be a mine shaft gap!
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's a legitimate debate, but you're exploring a military
| problem in a criminal context. True, gangs and drug cartels
| could and perhaps will use robots to gather intelligence or
| kill enemies, including police. But let's be realistic here,
| they _could_ attack each other with faked up tanks or from
| stolen helicopters...but that almost never happens.
| TX0098812 wrote:
| Other people may do bad things, let's... beat them to it?
| pmoriarty wrote:
| How often have proposed limits on police power actually been
| effected (or effective)?
|
| It seems that every year, year after year, and decade after
| decade police are only ever getting more and more powerful.
| doc_gunthrop wrote:
| On the upside, three states so far have abolished qualified
| immunity (New Mexico joined the list earlier this year). The
| first was Colorado in 2020. So there's hope this may spread to
| other states in the coming years.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| The problem is that abuse tends to vastly outpace incremental
| reform. We are just now making serious strides to legalizing
| cannabis and decriminalizing other sorts of drug use. That's
| great, but stack it up against the length of the drug war,
| the billions involved, and the number of lives it has
| impacted.
| ku-man wrote:
| To be honest, I wouldn't mind a powerful and controlling police
| as long as they effectively control crime. But the sad truth is
| criminality doesn't go down regardless of how much power is
| handled to the police. I don't blame too much the police as the
| judiciary system that considers criminals some sort of victims
| of society.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Sorry to be a downer but it will happen if it hasn't already, and
| the biggest reason is cost savings which is pretty hard to argue
| against when the budget is up for discussion at the local gov.
|
| Having drones patrol large areas, running plates and face-
| matching against a warrant database is much quicker and cheaper
| than having people doing it. They're also cheaper than
| helicopters to follow fleeing suspects, and a bit harder to
| detect.
|
| I agree though it's a huge privacy issue here, but when it comes
| down to money it'll be a tough fight.
| JCharante wrote:
| > Having drones patrol large areas, running plates and face-
| matching against a warrant database is much quicker and cheaper
| than having people doing it.
|
| Why would it be cheaper than metal poles with cameras attached
| to them? Surely stationary devices will be cheaper and safer.
| badjeans wrote:
| I guess a drone can just land on a roof (or even street-
| level)?
|
| Basically a battery powered camera that can be deployed very
| quickly to an area of interest.
| jMyles wrote:
| I have no problem with any of this, and I'm a full-blown police
| abolitionist. I love drones and their potential for public
| safety assurances.
|
| However, it's a completely different discussion when we talk
| about arming them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _That's true whether these mobile devices are remote controlled
| by a person or autonomously controlled by artificial
| intelligence, and whether the weapons are maximally lethal (like
| bullets) or less lethal (like tear gas)_
|
| Autonomous fire control, I agree. But remote fire control on non-
| lethal weapons?
|
| The EFF's argues a physically-present officer "will have better
| information about unfolding dangers and opportunities to de-
| escalate." I want evidence. A remote officer has no threat to
| life. They can't use a self defence argument in court. And they
| can think through things calmly. We also have more opportunity to
| record their inputs and actions and thus _increase_
| accountability. The "hackers will inevitably try to commandeer
| armed police robots" concern is real, but not insurmountable, and
| de-risked by limiting networked drones to non-lethal weapons. As
| for "capabilities of police to conduct crowd control by force"
| being "too great," forcing humans into harm's way seems like a
| wrong, circuitous way to address it.
|
| Police brutality is real. But so is the brutality of criminal
| activity. We owe this question more thought than a knee-jerk NRA-
| esque reaction.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Crime, including violent crime, has been on a long downward
| trend since 1994.
|
| > _But remote fire control on non-lethal weapons?_
|
| Non-lethal weapons are used for compliance, and are often
| abused, sometimes with fatal consequences. Turning it into a
| video game for the police drone operators and detaching them
| from it will breed more abuse.
|
| I particularly don't want to live in a world where can you get
| tased if you don't do what a drone tells you to do.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Turning it into a video game for the police drone
| operators and detaching them from it will breed more abuse_
|
| Again, where is the evidence for this? We're proposing a ban
| that puts people's lives at risk. You're willing to do that
| on a hunch?
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| I was always wondering which one would become true first. Robocop
| or Terminator.
|
| With enough abuse of technological advances, both are only a
| matter of time.
|
| I hope humanity figures out a peaceful utopia where everyone can
| be fed with tablets which give all nutrients and are freely
| distributed, and robots do work so humans don't have to. But
| looking at human history, I remain sceptical, it looks like the
| robocop/terminator scenario is more likely. Throughout history,
| humans have thrived for power and wealth accumulation, by
| peaceful or violent means.
|
| The day might come where many people will ask "how did we permit
| this to happen?".
|
| It will likely happen because the politicians , generals etc will
| say "like this, we don't have to risk human lives".
|
| They might be remote human operated at first, but the push for
| autonomous beta test will be inevitable.
|
| One bug or vulnerability will make the American police violence
| today look like a picnic in comparison.
|
| Maybe I am totally wrong, but this is a gut feeling.
| effingwewt wrote:
| I picture ED209 from Robocop 1. Just a matter of time I
| suppose.
|
| It's our children I truly fear for- as in by the time they are
| in their 40's who knows how bad things will be.
|
| Edit-added last stuffs.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| Slaughterbots (from 2018) is pretty terrifying. Do you want your
| local police force to have this?
|
| https://youtu.be/HipTO_7mUOw
| trhway wrote:
| resounding yes. With an armed drone/robot being in the line of
| perceived danger instead of a police the police looses that
| "split second decision" argument that has been letting them to
| kill all those people just because the shadow looked like a gun
| instead of a say giraffe.
|
| Also with a robot shooting precisely there would be no need for
| that "stopping power" BS with illegal under Geneva hollow point
| bullets killing that violently that the police so likes to use
| (driving end result more toward death due to large blood loss
| and tremendous tissue damage inflicted by the hollow point -
| all unnecessary really). The robot(s) can just precisely
| disable arms and/or legs with much less severe wounds (like
| police in some other countries do) using smaller caliber or
| even just an electric shock or temporarily motor nerve blocking
| agent, sleeping chemicals, etc.
|
| Also the robots will treat people equally, and thus big people
| getting the same law enforcement treatment as the rest of us
| little people may force the big people to adjust the law
| enforcement toward more reasonable approach. (i mean for
| example why the corporate IT support sucks so much? Well, what
| you would expect giving that the execs have their separate IT.
| Imagine if they had to use the same IT as rank-and-file and the
| IT couldn't tell whether it is an exec or regular Shmoe :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-18 23:01 UTC)