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 38 posts

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

#11

Post by DonHopkins »

warning26 wrote: post #5

Personally, I’d love to see robot drones remotely apply lethal force to people breaking into vehicles, but it’ll be a long time before enough red tape will be cut to make that happen.

I like the cut of your jib! But take it even further: How about drones applying lethal force to speeders and tailgaters, too? Also people who drive under the influence, or people who are rolling coal, or aggressively driving in convoys, or driving ICE cars and trucks with low miles per gallon or high emissions, or illegally parking in handicapped spots, or driving unnecessarily often, or when they could walk or ride their bikes or take public transit instead of driving, especially parents who drop their kids off at school in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon, when the kids could be riding bikes instead. I think you're onto something!

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

#12

Post by withinboredom »

warning26 wrote: post #5

Personally, I’d love to see robot drones remotely apply lethal force to people breaking into vehicles, but it’ll be a long time before enough red tape will be cut to make that happen.

I take it you’ve never had to break into your own car before?

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

#13

Post by cptcobalt »

Why lethal force, and not a less-than-lethal thing, like...possibly an incapacitating gas or something?

I am not fan of law enforcement (in its current form in the US), but charitably, I figure law enforcement uses lethal force because they want/need to "win the race" of who gets shot first. But in a battle of human vs robot, the operator of the robot is afforded a bit more time & flexibility because they're, frankly, just a robot. You don't necessarily need to escalate to lethality.

Why do we have to resort to the default human impulsive tactic of "we have to kill" and not actually use the benefit that putting a non-human device in the field could bring?

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

#14

Post by foxyv »

thinkmcfly wrote: post #6

We obviously need the right to have personal lethal combat robots if the state intends to use them against the people. Let's just not go down this road and not give the police the right to use lethal combat robots

I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.

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

#15

Post by cptcobalt »

foxyv wrote: post #14
thinkmcfly wrote: post #6

We obviously need the right to have personal lethal combat robots if the state intends to use them against the people. Let's just not go down this road and not give the police the right to use lethal combat robots

I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.

That is a horrifying idea.

I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)

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

#16

Post by BoorishBears »

cptcobalt wrote: post #13

Why lethal force , and not a less-than-lethal thing, like...possibly an incapacitating gas or something? I am not fan of law enforcement (in its current form in the US), but charitably, I figure law enforcement uses lethal force because they want/need to "win the race" of who gets shot first. But in a battle of human vs robot, the operator of the robot is afforded a bit more time & flexibility because they're, frankl…

If you read the whole article, that's exactly what they're doing. The robots don't carry actual weapons, but they can carry breaching charges and tear gas. But "less-than-lethal" isn't really a thing, they can still kill people, so they're using the term lethal.

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

#17

Post by tj-teej »

warning26 wrote: post #5

Personally, I’d love to see robot drones remotely apply lethal force to people breaking into vehicles, but it’ll be a long time before enough red tape will be cut to make that happen.

Do you believe no member of your family has ever experienced poverty and had to steal to survive? What a callous thing to say.

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

#18

Post by c22 »

cptcobalt wrote: post #15
foxyv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.

That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)

Imagine putting one of these things on a twitch plays.

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

#19

Post by LatteLazy »

warning26 wrote: post #5

Personally, I’d love to see robot drones remotely apply lethal force to people breaking into vehicles, but it’ll be a long time before enough red tape will be cut to make that happen.

Why stop there. We could take out people who fail to pay their taxes or who let their firearms licenses lapse or don't follow covid quarantines.

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

#20

Post by hacoo »

I'm not writing this as an argument for or against lethal-force robots, but I think there is some important context here. When people hear 'police robot' they tend to imagine ED-209 type robots blasting people, but this isn't really the case.

Usually police want these robots for 'barricaded suspect' type situations. We have SWAT to deal with this, but entering an area held by armed suspects is still extremely dangerous. Also, because officers might need to shoot in order to save their own lives, they have to make decisions extremely quickly, which can lead to bad shootings or unnecessary use of lethal force. Since robots can take bigger risks than humans can, there are situations where they may allow officers to resolve a situation nonlethally where they otherwise couldn't

That said, there are serious problems with police robots. The first is their ability to vastly expand police surveillance. Nonlethal robots face much less public scrutiny, but their potential to automate surveillance is terrifying to me. They also present a problematic revenue source for police departments, who might use them to ding people for parking violations, set up speed traps, etc, i.e., enforcement of minor crimes without actually improving public safety.

A final criticism (relevant to lethal robots) is that, while they may improve officer safety, this doesn't always improve public safety. There are times when officers need to prioritize response speed -- Uvalde Tx being the prime example. They can create a 'it's too dangerous -- SOP is to wait for the robot' mentality -- police departments / officers need to have the courage to avoid this.

Post reply on HN