[Update 2: Killer Robots Approval Reversed] San Francisco considering proposal to allow Police Robots that can use Lethal Force

[AlTech]

Summary

 

 San Francisco is considering a proposal that would allow the San Francisco Police Department to deploy Robots that are authorized to use lethal force against suspects.

 

The city's board of supervisors is voting this week on this proposal.

 

To be clear, the police Robots wouldn't have guns but one city in the US already using one of the types of Robots SF intends to use has had C4 or other explosives attached to them to take out snipers in buildings for example whilst causing minimal damage to the robot.

 

Quotes

Quote

As reported by Mission Local, a San Francisco news outlet, Supervisor Aaron Peskin initially tried to exclude a lethal force option from the policy, but SFPD struck out the line he had added: "Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person."

In its place, the policy now reads, "Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD."

 

Quote

None of these units are designed to carry firearms – a scenario considered and then abandoned by the Oakland Police Department – but at least some of them are capable of being used to kill.

In 2016, for example, Dallas police attached a pound of C4 explosives to a Northrop Grumman Remotec Androx Mark V A-1 robot and piloted the robot to a wall that a sniper – who had killed two police officers and wounded others – was using for concealment. Police then detonated the explosive, which destroyed the wall and killed the suspect, leaving the $151,000 robot with only minor damage to its arm.

 

Quote

That has yet to happen in San Francisco because these robots do not execute kill orders autonomously, without a human operator in the loop – the force policy language applies to "remotely controlled unmanned machine". SFPD's robots are therefore not autonomous killer robots, but tele-operated tools.

 

My thoughts

 Welp.

 

We're not quite at BF 2042's Ranger robots with mounted guns but how far off are we? The answer in this user's humble opinion is not far enough.

 

Whilst robot makers like Boston Dynamics - the robot maker pledging not to make robots that can kill - exist, there seems to be enough companies willing to please  governments with models that can kill.

 

iRobot, one of the companies providing these robots that can kill, being bought by Amazon also has the potential to complicate things as Amazon has contracts with government agencies and could see themselves with contracts for robots that can deliver explosive payloads, whether needed.

 

Sources

https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/24/san_francisco_lethal_robots/

[starsmine]

I'm sorry, that is one hell of a misleading headline with its framing.
They are talking about using them as drones, not some robot that can make a choice and kill a person, the one pulling the trigger is still a person. So when you have an active shooter, sniper, or hostage event, instead of say, sending in a meat target, you send in the robot. 

[Mark Kaine]

18 minutes ago, Caroline said:

You have 5 seconds to comply.

"Whoops, I meant four seconds...!"  

[AlTech]

12 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I'm sorry, that is one hell of a misleading headline with its framing.
They are talking about using them as drones, not some robot that can make a choice and kill a person,the one pulling the trigger is still a person.

For now... Though in theory there's not much stopping that from being replaced with actual autonomous robots that can kill.

12 minutes ago, starsmine said:

So when you have an active shooter, sniper, or hostage event, instead of say, sending in a meat target, you send in the robot. 

Though having the robot intervene does kind of preclude talking down a suspect who has hostages or just taking down a suspect without killing them. Both of a which a human can do but I'm doubtful of a robot's ability to do either.

[Brooksie359]

13 minutes ago, Caroline said:

I'll think as an American for a second, look if it's to take down a sniper with explosives they why don't they use a rocket launcher and blow him up? this is pretty much the same but the robot goes through the ground, is magnitudes of order slower, and costs more money. Or a BMP, whatever the american variant is, an armored vehicle with a turret on top. Unless the sniper can buy armor-piercing bullets at Costco.

Well assuming that you would have to have line of sight to shoot the rocket at the sniper then you are basically running the risk of being shot by said sniper. That is not even mentioning the room for error and the horrible problems it could cause if misfired. You hear stories of cops shooting each other on accident all the time so I wouldn't trust them to be able to shot a rocket at a sniper without messing up some of the time. At that point you might as well just get your own sniper to shoot the sniper because at least they would probably be more accurate. 

[Senzelian]

Next murica' is going to give police ICBMs just in case a shoplifter might have one too.

[wseaton]

It's California....and it's 'Frisco. The meme's above about Robocop are scary on target given the politics and turmoil in that DA's office the past 6 month with the ouster of Chesa Boudin.

 

Personally I think it's just a publicity stunt. The number of actual situations Skynet here could intervene are small to nil. It's the same complaint as police depts spending budgets on military vehicles but not having enough good old patrol officers on the street.

[Arika]

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

To be clear, the police Robots wouldn't have guns but one city in the US already using one of the types of Robots SF intends to use has had C4 or other explosives attached to them to take out snipers in buildings for example whilst causing minimal damage to the robot.

"oh don't worry we're not going to put GUNs on the robot to shoot people, we're just going to blow them the fuck up"

 

Does San Fransisco really have such a big problem with snipers that this makes any kind of sense?

[starsmine]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

"oh don't worry we're not going to put GUNs on the robot to shoot people, we're just going to blow them the fuck up"

 

Does San Fransisco really have such a big problem with snipers that this makes any kind of sense?

Snipers are uncommon, but has happened on a few occasions like in Dallas, and in DC
I would imagine the hostage and active shooter situations are more likely

[Arika]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

hostage and active shooter situations

so other innocent people around the person that you're trying to ""neutralise"" with (and i cannot stress this enough) FUCKING EXPLOSIVES?

 

 

 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

so other innocent people around the person that you're trying to ""neutralise"" with (and i cannot stress this enough) FUCKING EXPLOSIVES?

 

 

 

When this similarly titled article appeared on another nerd-news site, ED209 was literately the first meme response to it.

 

Overall, I think arming robots with -ANY- weapon, be that automatic, manual, "sniper kill shots", "machine gun indiscrimate fire", or "explosive in a building or the middle of a crowd of protesters"

 

The problem is the same as the "guns kill people, people with guns kill people", except now it's "guns kill people, people with guns kill people, robots with guns controlled by people", there is a semantic argument, you can't argue that if the guns or other un-improvised weapons didn't exist, there wouldn't be improvised weapons to do the same. It's all a question of how willing someone with access to such means is willing to use it.

 

So if a robot has explosives, that means it can be used to blow up an unstable building to take it down, set a wooden building on fire, or the explosives can be made to trigger prematurely and take out "the wrong target", or even having it in storage, blow up the police facility it's stored in.

 

You pretty much set the precedent that robots are dangerous, and that creates an uphill fight to improving them, because the people with ethical concerns will not work on it, leaving only those who see profit in making killer robots working to improve them. That's the problem we have ALREADY with the AI "art generation tools" being used. The people who are seeking profit in it, are releasing tools that are already dangerous when used in the wrong hands. AI manufactured and planted evidence? Sure.

 

At any rate, I feel the limitations on "allowing robots to be used to set and/or detonate explosives" should be left to mining/tunneling special-purpose robots that are big and slow enough to see coming, and not attached to robots people expect to not be hostile (Eg robot dogs/humanoids.) Because mark my words, the first time someone dies because a robot crushes someone (eg kicking it and it falls on them, eg a vending machine death,) will result in a backlash against every robot of similar design.

 

[HenrySalayne]

13 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

To be clear, the police Robots wouldn't have guns but one city in the US already using one of the types of Robots SF intends to use has had C4 or other explosives attached to them to take out snipers in buildings for example whilst causing minimal damage to the robot.

So San Francisco decides if the life of a human is more important than the cost of a robot?

 

[wanderingfool2]

11 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

For now... Though in theory there's not much stopping that from being replaced with actual autonomous robots that can kill.

That is a very "what about the children" type of excuse.  We are no where close to arming a robot that doesn't take the order from a human to kill.

 

11 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Though having the robot intervene does kind of preclude talking down a suspect who has hostages or just taking down a suspect without killing them. Both of a which a human can do but I'm doubtful of a robot's ability to do either.

You can have 2 way communication.  There is nothing saying that they send it in just to kill.  You also have the general fact that you have situations where it's potentially deadly sending in someone to attempt to subdue a criminal...think in regards to the scenario where you have an active shoot that current is killing people and you are unable to get close enough to immobilize him.

 

There is no reason why they wouldn't try it first, but you need to be realistic that there are quite a bit of scenarios where it makes sense sending in a robot which also has the ability to kill (the human operator can make that choice).

 

6 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

So San Francisco decides if the life of a human is more important than the cost of a robot?

 

Care to rephrase?  SF is giving the operator the discretion of using lethal force.  That could mean rigging with an explosion to immobilize/kill a suspect.  They are literally saying the cost of the robot is justified in preventing putting other non-suspect lives at risk.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

I'm vehemently opposed to militarization of police as a whole. Military and Police are two forces with two different purposes:

• Military exist to protect "us" from "them". Giving more lethal and precise weapons to Military, create detterence and promote peace
• Police is a part of "us". I believe the purpose of police is to de-escalate and promote peaceful resolution of conflict. I believe any effort that plans to give police more lethal weapons, make police less and less a part of "us" and it ends up promoting compliance through terror.

I believe this is something many states in Europe in general get right, with some states not even allowing police to carry small arm weapons regularly, compared with the USA in which many states have much more lenient engagement rule. The results in gunfire violence I believe speak for themselves. Tactically, it makes it easier for a policeman to solve a problem by taking out a gun, but strategically, having a police force with more training in deescalating most common situation without ever having the "bring out the gun" card to answer, promotes the kind of society I would rather live in.

 

More special police forces with military training and military weapons like SWAT make sense, because there are situations that can only be solved with precise use of lethal force. And when you do need it, you want someone that is good and precise at wielding lethal force. But I believe they should be a trump card of last resort, not the average.

 

As much as one would like to think otherwise, I believe a drug addict pulling out a shiv to rob someone to get their fix, is still a part of "us". As much as possible, society should try to reeducate and reintegrate them. I believe when you treat a sub-section of your population as "them", you just make matters worse in the long run. Someone that made a bad decision or had a streak of bad luck, now finds themselves labled as "them" and unable to leave that hole and becoming again a part of "us", so end up becoming a criminal by trade, and in the long run, your Police has an harder time because there are more professional criminals that are good at being criminals.

 

It's not a problem that has easy solution. Why should a drug addict receive resources for "free" when law abiding citizens need to work hard for maybe fewer resources? Sitll, I believe this is when the government is earning the taxes we pay: when the government uses our taxes to reintegrate stray citizens inside the country's borders into becoming productive and peaceful again, and when the government is using military to keep the "them" out of the country's borders.

 

My answer to the questions: "Should remote controlled robots be equipped with weapons" for me is:

• Military forces should and are allowed to use remote controlled weapons, and perhaps even semi autonomous weapons. Having a more precise, efficient and lethal military, makes your country safer from "them"
• Police forces should be severly restricted in the amount of lethal forces they are allowed to discharge. So, most officers shouldn't even have a handgun, making the society safer for "us"

 

As bonus, semi autonomous military robots carrying gun, are already a thing

[Taf the Ghost]

The only important question: can they pick up poop and needles? Because that's SanFran's real problem.

[Quackers101]

A lot of issues around it, but some are good when dealing with dangerous people + dangerous "hardware".

I hope its limited use and strong regulation.

Also to no breach privacy for the sake of it, or other uses.

[Needfuldoer]

 

[Doobeedoo]

Next up laser beam cannons.

[WhitetailAni]

[HenrySalayne]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Care to rephrase?  SF is giving the operator the discretion of using lethal force.  That could mean rigging with an explosion to immobilize/kill a suspect.  They are literally saying the cost of the robot is justified in preventing putting other non-suspect lives at risk.

No.

23 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

one of the types of Robots SF intends to use has had C4 or other explosives attached to them to take out snipers in buildings for example whilst causing minimal damage to the robot.

"causing minimal damage to the robot". They literally want a non-suicide suicide bomber robot.

 

There are hundreds if not thousands of other options than blowing a subject up. But "a whole bunch of TNT" is just the answer to everything. Look at the Mythbusters or Oregon.

[AlTech]

The vote passed in San Francisco meaning the SFPD are now legally allowed to use the robots capable of killing people.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/san-francisco-police-allowed-to-use-remote-controlled-robots-that-can-kill-12758631

[Stahlmann]

Am i the only one who doesn't have a problem with drones being used against someone shooting up a school? I say send in the drone to do the work, why risk more policemen getting shot at? Not to mention the weapons typically used is such things are probably not even gonna be able to stop a robot. Chances of capturing these people alive are probably higher than having to shoot them on sight, giving the shooter the easy way out.

[AlTech]

55 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Am i the only one who doesn't have a problem with drones being used against someone shooting up a school? I say send in the drone to do the work, why risk more policemen getting shot at? Not to mention the weapons typically used is such things are probably not even gonna be able to stop a robot. Chances of capturing these people alive are probably higher than having to shoot them on sight, giving the shooter the easy way out.

So instead you'd rather send a robot with explosives to blow up the suspect?

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

So instead you'd rather send a robot with explosives to blow up the suspect?

Not necessarily explosives. There are other things that can be fitted onto a robot. But my entire point is, why risk the life of your policemen etc. when you can just send a robot. The worst thing that can happen with a robot is that it's destroyed. If a policeman (or woman) gets killed that has significantly more consequences.

 

If we're just talking about RC cars with explosives strapped onto them, then that's nothing new.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Apparently the vote has been reversed, no explosive/gun wielding robots in the hand of the police for now.

https://www.therobotreport.com/in-reversal-san-francisco-bans-police-from-using-robots-with-lethal-force/