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

San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#81

Post by gspetr »

Jensson wrote: post #18
somehnacct3757 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the history of IoT botnets, the remote control aspect is exactly why this is a bad idea. Cops are not more technologically savvy than the average person. There's no way to tell at a glance if a death robot is controlled by good guys or bad guys. You just see a shotgun on tank treads rolling through the school hallway.

> There's no way to tell at a glance if a death robot is controlled by good guys or bad guys. The worst mass shooting in history was made by a guy dressed up as a cop, there is no way to tell if anyone is a good guy before they start shooting.

Which event are you referring to? I thought Garissa University College attack (148 fatalities) was the worst worldwide.

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#82

Post by graderjs »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #80
graderjs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you describe some? What I remember from Elysium is: med beds, elite donut world in orbit, corporate dystopian slave earth, exoskeletons.

Attempting to explain his situation to the robot police officers at the scene, where they broke his arm for 'resisting'. Something like that. I think there was a similar interaction at the police station. Automated responses, no grey area, computer says no.

Ah yes! And when he is asking questions and pushing back, it's like: "Are you expressing attitude? You will be punished. Take a sedative." dystopian dmv

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#83

Post by pjc50 »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #74
pjc50 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a terrorist cell, which has no leader, no members, no financiers but is able to attack anyway. This is called "stochastic terrorism". It has carried out at least two attacks in the United States in the past week. Doesn't require fancy technology, just very effective ideological poisoning.

Which attacks are you referring to, out of interest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_... (671 dead, 2616 wounded total so far)

The ones which had made it through to UK twitter were the Walmart one (not ideological per se, but the workplace massacre is a distinct American phenomenon) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_nightclub_sho... which definitely was ideological.

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#84

Post by onion2k »

krapp wrote: post #75
onion2k wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately what we have learned is that terrorists at the end of the day are pretty dumb. Is that because the ones we don't think are dumb get called "freedom fighters"?

No, the freedom fighters tend to be pretty dumb too - see Jan. 6th. Whether they get called freedom fighters or terrorists depends more on their race and religion than their capabilities.

No, the freedom fighters tend to be pretty dumb too - see Jan. 6th.

Maybe they were terrorists...

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#85

Post by yywwbbn »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #73
celtain wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this is a relevant argument. Police can already use deadly force when someone poses an immediate threat to themselves or others. Using deadly force via a remote controlled robot when a suspect poses an immediate threat to others isn't an expansion of that use of force policy. Killing somebody just because they're running from an outstanding warrant would be a new and terrible policy whether or not a r…

This already happened, a US citizen was killed by drone strike in Yemen ordered by the US president (Obama at the time). So yes, it is very relevant. Who guarantees you they wouldn't do it at home if they're now given the same capability on US soil? A terrorist on the run - they could take them out by robot instead of having to go through the arduous process of an arrest and court of law. Maybe he didn't comply with…

> This already happened

Well it’s illegal for starters.

Same reason they shipped terrorism suspects to Cubs and tortured them there. It would be illegal to do that in the US. Obviously it’s a bit weird that government officials/military can do all sorts of things overseas that would be illegal back home. It’s not something new though, US has been doing this since it first started intervening in other countries back in the 19th century.

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#86

Post by remarkEon »

pjc50 wrote: post #31
winReInstall wrote: post #10

Imagine a terrorist cell, which has no leader, no members, no financiers but is able to attack anyway. A DAO hires gig workers to assemble a "product" in a property which it has rented, the product is then programed by the DAO to attack the city it resides in. The DAO having speculated on shares of competitors of companies within the city, moves ever onwards. Terrorism as a software glider gun. Its a major theme in m…

> a terrorist cell, which has no leader, no members, no financiers but is able to attack anyway. This is called "stochastic terrorism". It has carried out at least two attacks in the United States in the past week. Doesn't require fancy technology, just very effective ideological poisoning.

“Stochastic terrorism” is a made up term, meant to give the extremely online a mechanism to ascribe group blame to a tragic event perpetrated by a deranged individual. It’s an awesomely Orwellian term, because now people who commit otherwise random violence can be charged with terrorism if the state so chooses.

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#87

Post by namaria »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #48
namaria wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exponential is usually an adjective applied to processes and progressions. I'm having a hard time parsing the phrase "exponential tech advance". What do you mean?

Unless edited since, the parent comment said "advances" not "advance". A sequence of advances can obviously be exponential, even if they're discrete rather than continuous.

That could make sense but "exponential toys" and "exponential weapons" and "exponentials" as a substantive indicate to me the intended meaning was closer to "disruptive".

Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’

#89

Post by trompetenaccoun »

yywwbbn wrote: post #85
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This already happened, a US citizen was killed by drone strike in Yemen ordered by the US president (Obama at the time). So yes, it is very relevant. Who guarantees you they wouldn't do it at home if they're now given the same capability on US soil? A terrorist on the run - they could take them out by robot instead of having to go through the arduous process of an arrest and court of law. Maybe he didn't comply with…

> This already happened Well it’s illegal for starters. Same reason they shipped terrorism suspects to Cubs and tortured them there. It would be illegal to do that in the US. Obviously it’s a bit weird that government officials/military can do all sorts of things overseas that would be illegal back home. It’s not something new though, US has been doing this since it first started intervening in other countries back i…

It's illegal abroad as well. His two children were also killed in separate drone strikes, the younger one was only 8 years old and a US citizen as well. Where's the legality here, come on! I'm not an expert in American law but doubt you'll find justification for that in any legal texts.

The thing is: What could ordinary citizens do about it? The government isn't going to investigate itself, especially not a popular president that wasn't even under much pressure to do so. He brought so much change, just not the good kind: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Graph_of...

If you give the police certain powers, they're guaranteed to be abused at some point. Individual officers can be held accountable but what if the robot malfunctions? Killer bots are more than a slippery slope, they're a giant pandora's crate that should never be opened.

Post reply on HN