Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns • Hacker News Board

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#31

Post by samfbiddle » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #26

samfbiddle wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.

No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doin…

I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#32

Post by Teever » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

labrador wrote: post #16

samfbiddle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take…

Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title. These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans. Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer. Robots act autonomously and automatica…

I'm sure the distinction between teleoperated machine and autonomous robot will be very important to the family killed by this machine the next time the Oakland police do a no-knock raid on the wrong house.

Whatever kind of machine this is at the end of the day it's a force multiplier. That's why it is used. It lets law enforcement leverage more force against people and it allows them to do so with further impunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdokBQW7Suc

It's always disconcerting when people don't see a problem with that.

How much force projection should law enforcement have anyways?

How much is too much? Is it subjective or objective?

What are the checks and balances on this kind of equipment?

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#33

Post by runnerup » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

_fat_santa wrote: post #23

samfbiddle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take…

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting…

I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper.

I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people.

Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#34

Post by jollyllama » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

adabyron wrote: post #4

Curious what others think. Would robot police allow police to be less scared for their lives & ask questions first instead of the fear that exists in some situations that cause them to shoot to quickly? Could this lead to a system where people can be judged properly in a court system instead of to quickly?

This specific robot is just going to discourage de-escalation for suspects barricaded with guns; easier to send the shotgun robot in after such a person.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#35

Post by mc32 » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

samfbiddle wrote: post #30

labrador wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title. These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans. Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer. Robots act autonomously and automatica…

It's considered a robot by its manufacturer ( https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum... ), the police who own it, and California state law, so I am confident in my choice of terms here.

When the subject of Robot + lethal force are combined, people think of Robocop, specifically the ED-209, not the cyborg. That's the implication. An autonomous robot which carries out "justice."

It would be appropriate to call it by it's modifier, a remote-controlled robot.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#36

Post by rolph » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:23 PM UTC

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #20

rolph wrote: post #2

if you are going to use any weapon, you need to be ready to have it taken from you or copied and, used against you

Well, I am sure that a drug cartel that can produce submarines[1] or drones[2] could manage an RC shotgun bot, but I am skeptical that you'd see them being used widely, compared to just handing a gun to someone? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine 2: https://news.yahoo.com/drug-cartels-attack-enemies-spread-17...

i think thats because, noone has been aggreiviated,[harmed enough enough to want to do it].

if it became common usage to strap a firearm to a drone of some sort, then that looks like a contemporary use, and perhaps private citizens would commonly use armed drones to patrol property and provide a personal bodyguard.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#37

Post by dheera » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

labrador wrote: post #16

samfbiddle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take…

Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title. These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans. Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer. Robots act autonomously and automatica…

> Robots act autonomously and automatically.

In the way most people colloquially use the word "robot", that's not necessarily true; surgical robots aren't autonomous, for example, nor are telepresence robots. The word "robot" is actually surprisingly vague. A dishwasher operates autonomously, but many people don't consider it a robot. Elevators are vertical L5 autonomous vehicles, but most people don't consider them robots, either.

More importantly, though, if a device has software-activated weapons and is connected to the internet, it is theoretically possible for a hacker to load code onto it to make it an autonomous death machine, even if its OEM firmware was intended for human-controlled teleoperation only.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#38

Post by pj_mukh » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

_fat_santa wrote: post #23

samfbiddle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take…

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting…

Good point. Though what if the suspect is threatening to shoot others, and there is a robot (with a live round) nearby?

I get that cops can't be trusted to only use it in this scenario (as implied by the author), but if hypothetical "better police officers" were available, should we allow it then?

EDIT: theoretically the robot (even if remote controlled) could aim better.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#39

Post by ericmcer » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

jimlongton wrote: post #12

bastawhiz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I largely agree, but the explosive charge can be a shotgun blank. Which also means it can be substituted for a normal shotgun shell. And the police can use this pretty much at their discretion. How long will it take for this to be misused?

They already did in 2016. [1] They lied to the shooter, who they had cornered, and told him the robot was delivering a phone. In fact it was a bomb. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...

He killed 5 cops and wounded 7 others at that point, maybe they were being slightly vengeful, but I also understand not wanting to send in more dudes.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#40

Post by josephcsible » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

_fat_santa wrote: post #23

samfbiddle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take…

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting…

> the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger"

Emphasis mine. Is it not okay to shoot at someone who's shooting at your partner?