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

101–110 of 145 posts

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

#101

Post by blamestross »

MattGaiser wrote: post #58
jMyles wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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).

Is the American model of policing better? Not really, they are instutionalized slavecatchers put in place when the south lost reconstruction to the KKK.

The British model has a chance, they at least have a moral foundation to work from. https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/peel-policing-pr...

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

#102

Post by AYBABTME »

I think _autonomous_ weapon systems that pick targets and fire autonomously are obviously scary.

However - and this is probably not going to be popular - I think if robots are remote controlled, it's probably for the best if lawful-violence-monopoly-appliers (i.e. the state) uses them instead of putting humans out there with weapons.

I think a lot of situations escalate to higher echelons of violence when the (e.g.) police officer is faced with a threat to their life and needs to quickly go up the escalation of force ladder to disable the opponent, euphemism for shooting them. If instead a robot is the agent being threatened, the equation would be much different. There would be no need to kill the human opponent, since a robot is not worth sacrificing a human life for.

To me, remote controlled weapon systems are a great way to avoid unnecessary escalation of force. And escalation of force are, in my opinion, what is at the heart of most display of police violence (police cars driving into crowds, police officers shooting someone). Of course there's no denying that there are many cases where force was unjustifiably misused, but I'm an optimist at heart and I think the majority of cases isn't so, and that robotic telepresence would be a good way of defusing a lot of situations that would otherwise have escalated.

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

#103

Post by jMyles »

parineum wrote: post #85
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This has never been the job of police, but of the much older institution of the sheriff (though today, there's hardly a distinction).

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

#104

Post by phkahler »

AYBABTME wrote: post #102

I think _autonomous_ weapon systems that pick targets and fire autonomously are obviously scary. However - and this is probably not going to be popular - I think if robots are remote controlled, it's probably for the best if lawful-violence-monopoly-appliers (i.e. the state) uses them instead of putting humans out there with weapons. I think a lot of situations escalate to higher echelons of violence when the (e.g.)…

>> If instead a robot is the agent being threatened, the equation would be much different.

There is no need to have an armed robot then, since self defense is not necessary. It is IMHO very bad for police to shoot in domestic calls, as you never really know who the "bad guy" is, and killing someone is equivalent to saying "is someone is gonna kill some here, its gonna be me".

For other situations like robbery maybe it's not as bad, but again there's no need to protect the robot.

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

#105

Post by throwaway894345 »

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?

Some people do, and the rest of us have armed police a few minutes away. Also worth noting that in some states, legally carrying a gun is very difficult, such that lots of people practically can’t carry if they wanted to.

Disclaimer: I’m not a gun nut, nor do I have a desire to carry a gun.

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

#106

Post by Sophistifunk »

AYBABTME wrote: post #102

I think _autonomous_ weapon systems that pick targets and fire autonomously are obviously scary. However - and this is probably not going to be popular - I think if robots are remote controlled, it's probably for the best if lawful-violence-monopoly-appliers (i.e. the state) uses them instead of putting humans out there with weapons. I think a lot of situations escalate to higher echelons of violence when the (e.g.)…

And I put it to you that being safely miles away in an airconditioned box without risk of being swarmed by a mob for shooting first will make police more likely to escalate violence much sooner.

How are we supposed to know which is correct before it's too late?

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

#107

Post by throwaway894345 »

frickinLasers wrote: post #31
GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #7

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.

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.

Didn’t they use a robot to take out the Dallas sniper who was targeting whites and police. I don’t really see what is wrong with that situation. I get why there is fear about using them in the general case however.

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

#108

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

plank_time wrote: post #30

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 i…

Combat vets aren't the problem. They are less likely to shoot. It's the wannabes doing paramilitary cosplay who are the heart of the issue.

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

#109

Post by kelnos »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #83
jMyles wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 weakn…

> The police just need to be held accountable for their actions. Right now, that seems to be the biggest weakness in the system.

I worry that the lack of accountability might be fundamental to the current system, and the "just" in "just need to be held accountable" is not even remotely as trivial as it sounds.

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

#110

Post by Retric »

mdorazio wrote: post #69
Retric wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 cou…

Off the shelf drones are so slow they don’t need to be predicted. Signal jamming is the default because it’s safe, cheap, and effective. However at Phalanx CIWS is more than happy to shoot down a drone, but using one for anti drone work presents some inherent risks as it’s quite possibly going to target sea birds by mistake.

Anyway, if you’re thinking about a custom built drone which follows pre programmed flight paths to a preset target, congratulations that’s a cruse missile. Various versions have traded off speed to follow the terrain more closely, but speed is considered more useful than extremely low speeds.

Post reply on HN