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

Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

missionlocal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 225 posts

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#141

Post by falcolas »

Alupis wrote: post #97
chimeracoder wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. Because cops have such a great track record with those decisions so far? > In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. This is what cops always claim when these discussions come up, but a look at the actual data proves otherwise. Cops routinely kill civilians - including innocent ones - in situations where…

I don't understand what you are saying. If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. With that said, you grossly overstate this "problem" and the data doesn't tell the story you think it does... but regardless, there is no way to frame this but positive. Unless you just are anti-police in general...

> If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better.

Or, they feel free to use the “Easy Button” to end situations faster, precisely since there is no risk to them to do so.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#142

Post by xvector »

neoromantique wrote: post #95
petilon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One word --> Uvalde. A remote-controlled robot equipped with a gun is needed in this type of situation. The gun will be operated by a human, remotely.

Or you know, Police Officers inside, doing their jobs. But arresting parents was indeed higher priority.

Police didn't go inside because they were scared of dying.

Were they cowards? Yes. Does calling them cowards solve the problem? No.

Robots would actually solve the problem.

In tech we have a culture of blaming the process, not people. Now, we should definitely blame the Uvalde officers for their cowardice. But we should also think about how we could improve the process around dealing with active shooters and officers who simply aren't brave enough when push comes to shove. This was not the first time, and nor will it be the last time, when innocent lives die because of afraid law enforcement officers. Let's solve this problem at the process layer.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#143

Post by [deleted] »

russellbeattie wrote: post #79

There is zero need for a device which can't be killed to use deadly force. What are they thinking? The justification for police to have and use guns is that their lives could be in danger from so much as a broken bottle. Police have guns to protect themselves. Yes, in reality they use them to threaten, intimidate and "take out the bad guys" before they potentially harm others ("We shot him in the back 40 times as he…

[deleted]

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#144

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

Alupis wrote: post #53

Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. This is a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot retrofitted with a gun. A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing. Nobody cares if a robot is destroyed. A robot will allow everyone time to think and assess the situation before making a snap-judgement we all question later on. This can do nothing but reduce let…

For now. Israel has already implemented/tested AI driven non-lethal guns. It is a matter of time before it is normalized.

Yes. Drones in Afghanistan ( and elsewhere lately ) truly taught us nothing about human nature and how we perceive danger.

If anything, it will significantly increase it, because:

1) cops will demand more of them 2) they will get them 3) budgets will forever be increased 4) people that are trigger happy will just be pressing different triggers

We are in agreement. Is the street a field though? We ask for a human, because the moment some random John is controlling the robot he has no stakes in local community. He might as well be controlling it from India.

Yes, which is the reason for concerns.

Maybe in theory, but that fails to account for cultural differences, human nature and the fact that is merely a stepping stone away from autonomous robot deciding who lives or dies.

Time may prove me wrong, but from where I sit, there is a reason to be concerned.

edit: Crap man, this does not even scratch the surface of how bad an idea that is and most of it is not even based on technical issues, but merely on knowledge of human nature.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#146

Post by mushbino »

tvszzzz wrote: post #92

I see a lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread but I actually don't see why you wouldn't be okay with this if you're already okay with police having guns. I believe there is a more nuanced view point here. A few points: - This is about remote controlled guns. A human is still making the decision and all of the same rules and oversight apply. You can make an argument for existing oversight is insufficient but that i…

Would you object to police putting remote controlled gun turrets on the corners of buildings around the city?

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#147

Post by chrisweekly »

eternalban wrote: post #94
treeman79 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that killer robots are a bad idea. Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either.

Why not make a robot that takes down the shooter? Doesn't need to kill. Just tackle the person and pin them down. A bit of armor would do it, right?

Mixed feelings about involvement of robots at all, but ABSOLUTELY YES the use of NON-LETHAL FORCE is outrageously under-utilized in every kind of policing IRL and as depicted in popular media. Set em on stun, FFS.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#148

Post by falcolas »

vorpalhex wrote: post #47
salad-fan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six.

Dead bystanders is usually considered poor form.

Tell that to the Uvalde police department.

Police are concerned with their own lives. They have no duty to protect anybody else’s lives

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#149

Post by XorNot »

eternalban wrote: post #94
treeman79 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that killer robots are a bad idea. Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either.

Why not make a robot that takes down the shooter? Doesn't need to kill. Just tackle the person and pin them down. A bit of armor would do it, right?

Or a drone which dives bombs with a tazer. That's the worst thing about this: robotics should mean that we have options because robots are replaceable and should be expendable.

But this tells you the real story: an expensive robot is more valuable then a human life.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#150

Post by Alupis »

falcolas wrote: post #141
Alupis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you are saying. If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. With that said, you grossly overstate this "problem" and the data doesn't tell the story you think it does... but regardless, there is no way to frame this but positive. Unless you just are anti-police in general...

> If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. Or, they feel free to use the “Easy Button” to end situations faster, precisely since there is no risk to them to do so.

I doubt that will be the case. A lone officer shooting someone while covering their camera is far easier than hauling out this huge machine and deploying it. It literally requires only one person to make that decision all on their own.

I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count...

The risks seem to be extremely minimal. Accountability can be built into the machine itself. We can even require multiple layers of "sign off" before the digital trigger can be activated.

This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use.

Post reply on HN