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

41–50 of 74 posts

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

#41

Post by whoknew1122 »

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 does that mean though? The whole 'suspect is holding a hostage as a human shield so you shoot the suspect before they kill the hostage' is a fun trope for TV and movies, but that's not how things work in real life.

Also, criminals will know the robots have these capabilities, too. If a barricaded suspect hears or sees a robot rummaging around, that could be interpreted as force escalation. Which may cause the criminal to react in unpredictable ways that increase risk to the public and police officers.

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

#42

Post by whoknew1122 »

leereeves wrote: post #34
scandox wrote: post #30

Craig Strete[1] has a short story about "womb-cops" that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and "burn down" people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete

How will cops justify deadly force if they can't claim they feared for their safety?

Something something qualified immunity. It'll still work.

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

leereeves wrote: post #34
scandox wrote: post #30

Craig Strete[1] has a short story about "womb-cops" that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and "burn down" people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete

How will cops justify deadly force if they can't claim they feared for their safety?

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by Semaphor »

stale2002 wrote: post #33
didericis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> What happens when you fake danger So what, you go up to a bank, with a fake gun, and then say "lul, I was just robbing you as a prank bro?" Probably the same thing will happen to you, as would happen to you right now, if you pointed a fake gun at someone.

In the case of the bank, or the fake gun, the prankster might get shot. In the case of the robot, the pranked person might be shot. Doesn’t quite seem the same.

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

#45

Post by EGreg »

winReInstall wrote: post #28
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.

Its a preemptive measure, against what the ukraine war will spill into the civil sphere. If drug gangs get explosive suicide drones, and stack them up on some roof, callable as service, flashing the red and blue will not do. Welcome, to the hell, that is a unchanged humanity with 300 years of tech for everyone. And it was pretty forseeable, hell drones are cheaper then guns now. This is what we worked for, this is wh…

Here's a half hearted attempt... this is actually a good thing, because then there will be less people on the planet and less garbage, pollution, destruction of ecosystems, and everyone will be richer.

Presumably, few people will try to unleash drones on nature, and even if they do, they will only have minimal effect given the enormity of the planet. On the other hand, currently we have factory farming where billions of animals are brought up in abysmal conditions to feed the population meat, they live on an ecological credit card, and it's probably far more destructive in the end through famines or just general ecosystem collapse.

Seeing what's coming from that, you might actually consider the threat nuclear war to be comforting...?

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

#46

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

winReInstall wrote: post #28
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.

Its a preemptive measure, against what the ukraine war will spill into the civil sphere. If drug gangs get explosive suicide drones, and stack them up on some roof, callable as service, flashing the red and blue will not do. Welcome, to the hell, that is a unchanged humanity with 300 years of tech for everyone. And it was pretty forseeable, hell drones are cheaper then guns now. This is what we worked for, this is wh…

By every measurable metric - the world is substantially better today than 300 years ago.

If you seek, you shall find.

If you're looking for reasons why the world is burning down - you'll find them in every headline.

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

#47

Post by burkaman »

leereeves wrote: post #34
scandox wrote: post #30

Craig Strete[1] has a short story about "womb-cops" that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and "burn down" people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete

How will cops justify deadly force if they can't claim they feared for their safety?

Since there is no legal precedent ruling that remote robot kills are unconstitutional, officers piloting these robots will be immune from prosecution.

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

#49

Post by classified »

burkaman wrote: post #39
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.

Yes, these robots are pretty slow and relatively difficult to deploy. It is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario where "loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent", but police still somehow have time to deploy and pilot this thing into a crime scene from a safe distance. If they had time to do that, then there wasn't really an imminent danger. Realistically, this will be used when someone has…

Shooting the person so they can go home. Best reason ever.

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

#50

Post by swiftcoder »

I really wish we'd draw some harder lines between "robot" (autonomous), versus "drones" (remote controlled by a human). The article is in fact discussing drones, not robots, so the salient point [to misquote a phrase from the gun control debate] "drones don't kill people, drone operators kill people" - the SFPD is asking here for a new and safer way to murder civilians.
Post reply on HN