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

Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#131

Post by argvargc »

andrew_ wrote: post #92
argvargc wrote: post #90

How about we spend less time debating which horrifically powerful weapons to make or not, and more time on how to foster a society that doesn't have any use for them?

Five thousand years of recorded history suggests that's a pipe dream. Such cultures only exist in fiction (that we know of). Utopia is often described as imaginary.

I can reel off a list longer than recorded history of entirely unprecedented events of worldwide impact that have happened in the past few decades versus the past 5000.

The imagination being entertained here is your own; that humanity's future from this point could be even remotely similar to anything that's ever happened before.

Every choice we make as a whole now is of extreme importance, and almost nothing we can conceive of can be sensibly considered to be off the table.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#132

Post by argvargc »

handmodel wrote: post #93
argvargc wrote: post #90

How about we spend less time debating which horrifically powerful weapons to make or not, and more time on how to foster a society that doesn't have any use for them?

Doesn't the solution to your second question probably involve settling the debate on not making weapons at all, anyway. Which is the first question.

No, that's the entire point of the statement. The debating of such things is counter to the stated goal weapons are purported to be brought into existence to achieve.

We don't stop people killing and harming each other by figuring out how to kill/harm them (or threaten to do so), by ever more powerful means.

We stop people killing each other by figuring out how to stop them (and us) wanting to do anything remotely like that in the first place.

Unless we change direction, we will end up where we're going.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#133

Post by throwawayswede »

thefounder wrote: post #76
throwawayswede wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an empty argument. Criticizing American military and government doesn't mean you can't criticize others.

My point is that the enemy would gain a tech and tactical advantage if you restrict the usage of robotics in your army.

They already have the advantage, American military is stretched too thin because politicization think they're running an empire. The pentagon is a corrupt institute. They made triple-digit trillions in "accounting adjustments" over the years.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#134

Post by argvargc »

toomanyducks wrote: post #97
path411 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A police department can't gain budget to not buy things though

Why is the police department the one working to make the police department obsolete? That seems like mistake number one if we're going to try to demilitarize the police.

Police only exist in a complex enough form of social consequence worth arguing about, where people don't have the material and mental means to comfortably enjoy life.

Concepts such as law, order and defence are topics that readily devolve - precisely because of widespread mental deficiency - into counter-productivity.

The base useful question we can ask as a species supposedly seeking peace, is how to best cultivate the material and mental means that demonstrably create it in us.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#135

Post by chrisseaton »

greeneggs wrote: post #120
chrisseaton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of police never actually need their weapons. So why are they routinely carrying them? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-lo... There's tons of dangerous things we could carry around just in case, but we don't because they'd be seen as aggressive.

> The vast majority of police never actually need their weapons. So why are they routinely carrying them? Your link doesn't support this. How many police have drawn their weapons?

Police in the US seem to draw their weapons as a normal part of many interactions with the public, so I guess it's 100%.

But I have absolutely no idea why they do that - it seems bizarre and terrifying to me. I'm certain they don't need to be doing it.

If you're drawing your weapon every day but never actually needing to use it... maybe stop drawing it?

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#136

Post by frickinLasers »

trhway wrote: post #70
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I get that some jargon is clear to those who have an interest in the topic. But how the hell is it acceptable to use sth like "IED/UXO" on an article about ethics? This is so obviously not a well known term (and not searchable). My mind boggles.

>But how the hell is it acceptable to use sth like "IED/UXO" on an article about ethics? how the hell do you expect to understand an article on autonomous drones ethics without knowing that IED/UXO means? It makes obvious that you lack basic knowledge of modern factual landscape in the domain, and how do you expect to understand ethics of the domain without basic factual knowledge of the domain?

My bad, dude. The ambiguity has been addressed in other people's replies.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#137

Post by stevehawk »

greeneggs wrote: post #121
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combat vets aren't the problem. They are less likely to shoot. It's the wannabes doing paramilitary cosplay who are the heart of the issue.

Statistically, combat veterans are 6 percentage points more likely to shoot than non-veterans. (32% versus 26% have discharged their service firearm while on duty, other than at a gun range or during training.) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-lo...

That stat doesn't mean much to me though. I'd want to know about unjustified discharging of weapons. I'd imagine cities like LA, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are more likely to assign combat veterans to the places with higher crime, particularly gun violence, than anyone else on the force. I'd also expect former military to be involved in S.W.A.T. more than non-veterans. And for that reason I expect their likelihood of discharging a weapon to be higher.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#138

Post by jMyles »

parineum wrote: post #125
jMyles wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has never been the job of police, but of the much older institution of the sheriff (though today, there's hardly a distinction).

I'm clearly talking about today and the future.

Right. So, the most obvious answer is to simply restore the institution of the Sheriff while abolishing police.

An even better answer is to reimagine decentralized community security with all of the capabilities of an information age society - cameras, drones, etc.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#139

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

handmodel wrote: post #95
GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Police agencies have taken care to avoid headlines that might raise unpleasant questions about killing suspects with military robots, so it's not something that's easily googleable.

Are there any other examples? I don't deny that they could be quiet about it - but it actually seems easily knowable given the reports that finally come out. Plus - there are so few situations where the suspect has barricaded themselves anyway. Its not like car chase suspect or people running away from cops have been able (in the past) to be attacked by anything other than cops guns or tasers or guns.

Most news stories from the late 80's/early 90's don't seem to be available outside of paid archives, so I don't have any links to provide.

Re: Don’t Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones

#140

Post by chroma »

chrisseaton wrote: post #57
anigbrowl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a sad fact in the USA that you might encounter an armed criminal almost anywhere. I have personally seen a bunch of crimes involving gunfire, rather than mere brandishing of weapons. On the other hand, police carry a lot of weapons, typically a handgun, pepper spray, a taser, a baton, and a heavy switchblade knife, plus a shotgun or rifle in the car. But they're relatively poorly trained and (even taking police…

The vast majority of police never actually need their weapons. So why are they routinely carrying them? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-lo... There's tons of dangerous things we could carry around just in case, but we don't because they'd be seen as aggressive.

You can use a weapon without firing it. For example, in this video[1] a rioter stole an M4 carbine from a police car. A security guard pointed a pistol and ordered the rioter to drop the weapon. He did. No shots were fired and the police carbine was recovered. Had the security guard not had a gun, I doubt the situation would have ended as harmlessly as it did.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVAMUejexa0

Post reply on HN