Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#81

Post by jackson1442 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #73
chrisseaton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 arm…

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.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#82

Post by heavyset_go »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

> 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 opportunitie…

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.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#83

Post by CamperBob2 »

jMyles wrote: post #40
hermannj314 wrote: post #33

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 o…

> 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 t…

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.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#84

Post by JumpCrisscross »

heavyset_go wrote: post #82
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

> 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 opportunitie…

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…

> 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?

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#85

Post by parineum »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #80
parineum wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But that doesn't have to look anything like what we have now. Arguably, courts meet your description.

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?

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#86

Post by smegger001 »

jackson1442 wrote: post #81
anigbrowl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arm…

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 a…

>>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.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#87

Post by anigbrowl »

jackson1442 wrote: post #81
anigbrowl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arm…

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 a…

I would like this too as I do not enjoy living in a heavily policed society, not to mention all the racial/class bias that seems to pervade policing in the US. But like I said, I think you'll have a very hard time recruiting or financing unarmed security as a public service in the foreseeable future. Investing more in alternative social services seems like the best approach for reducing demand, but you're probably looking at 5-10 years to produce statistically significant changes than you can rally voters behind.

To be clear, I'm not saying police should be heavily armed, but you have an uphill struggle persuading people who do think that, which includes many of the police themselves.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#88

Post by csomar »

craftinator wrote: post #77
heavyset_go wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

There is money (and usually in cash) in the police line of work. It's much harder to make any money from the public in the army. So there is much less at stake.

Police can make arbitrarily good amount of money if they are corrupt. That's what is unbalancing things.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#89

Post by pessimizer »

trhway wrote: post #70
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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 modern factual landscape in the domain, and how do you expect to understand ethics of the domain without basic factual knowledge of the domain?

The argument that those acronyms are a requirement for the understanding of the ethics of autonomous killer robots is a very difficult one.
Post reply on HN