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

San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#11

Post by adolph »

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. . . .

Following the shooting, Johnson fled inside a building on the campus of El Centro College. Police followed him there, and a standoff ensued. In the early hours of July 8, police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot. The robot charged into Johnson's legs and detonated, which killed him. It was the first time U.S. law enforcement used a robot to kill a suspect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#12

Post by didericis »

symfoniq wrote: post #7
donatj wrote: post #6

Isn’t the entire point of officers being allowed to use lethal force that their lives are in danger? Killing people remotely when you are completely safe just seems like straight up murder.

Or in the defense of another. It wouldn’t make sense for a robot to take a life to save its own, but it might make sense for it to take a life to save your mother’s.

What happens when you fake danger to get robots to murder people for you. Or when the robot has “bugs” that kill demographics you don’t like more often.

This is a horrifically terrible idea.

It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#13

Post by jobs_throwaway »

hirundo wrote: post #4

> The idea of robots being legally allowed to kill has garnered some controversy. Since these "robots" are not autonomous, you can substitute "guns" for "robots" in the above sentence. The sentence remains true but becomes banal. The big ethical difference is that the remote trigger puller can no longer justify the act by a threat to their own life, only to other lives.

yup, this is an inflammatory title that isn't what it seems on first glance. If anything, this is only a net good as remote cops won't be able to justify things based on fear for their own life

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#14

Post by yreg »

didericis wrote: post #12
symfoniq wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in the defense of another. It wouldn’t make sense for a robot to take a life to save its own, but it might make sense for it to take a life to save your mother’s.

What happens when you fake danger to get robots to murder people for you. Or when the robot has “bugs” that kill demographics you don’t like more often. This is a horrifically terrible idea. It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.

The article is about remote controlled robots, not AI. (If I understand correctly.)

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#16

Post by donkeyd »

ccvannorman wrote: post #5
mikece wrote: post #3

Wouldn't it be more helpful to have robots scooping up [stuff] from the sidewalks and sanitizing things?

In Singapore maybe .. this is America! If there's anything we're good at domestically, it's using lethal police force.

You can drop the 'police' from that sentence and it stays true!

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#18

Post by edgyquant »

didericis wrote: post #12
symfoniq wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in the defense of another. It wouldn’t make sense for a robot to take a life to save its own, but it might make sense for it to take a life to save your mother’s.

What happens when you fake danger to get robots to murder people for you. Or when the robot has “bugs” that kill demographics you don’t like more often. This is a horrifically terrible idea. It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.

You are not the only person to think of this. Obviously this is a huge reason we don’t have police drones yet.

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#19

Post by edgyquant »

mikece wrote: post #3

Wouldn't it be more helpful to have robots scooping up [stuff] from the sidewalks and sanitizing things?

No it would be equally as helpful except that part will never get funding while drones that take the burden off of police will.

Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

#20

Post by kneebonian »

Isn't this the same city that declared policing racist and made shoplifting anything less than $1000 a misdemenoar, whose DAs refuse to prosecute crime, and who declared bail discriminatory?

I am very very very confused about what is going on in SF right now.

Post reply on HN