Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Armed Police Bots with Stun Guns

Posted by Zonk on Sun Jul 08, 2007 01:33 AM
from the we-don't-serve-their-kind-here dept.
foniksonik writes "'On 28 June, Taser International of Arizona announced plans to equip robots with stun guns ... the new stun-capable robots could be used against civilians.' Non-lethal weapons experts are concerned that the robots will have to stun the suspected criminal for longer periods of time while awaiting human police to come make the official arrest. "If someone is severely punished by an autonomous robot, who are you going to take to a tribunal?" asks Steve Wright, a security expert at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • "If someone is severely punished by an autonomous robot, who are you going to take to a tribunal?"
    Skynet.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08 2007, @02:57AM (#19786795)

      "I'll be back... for the appeal."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "If someone is severely punished by an autonomous robot, who are you going to take to a tribunal?"

      So a company in America says they're going to try mounting tasers on robots, and before the first prototype is even built, and long before the first police department decides to evaluate them, some guy on the other side of the Atlantic is worrying about who to sue, if the robots ever get used in his country?

      Besides, isn't the answer obvious? You sue the organization or individual who decided to deploy the robot

  • Easy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lixee (863589) on Sunday July 08 2007, @01:44AM (#19786405)

    "If someone is severely punished by an autonomous robot, who are you going to take to a tribunal?"
    The idiots that allowed a robot in the police force.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Don't worry, nothing can go wrong... go wrong... go wrong... go wrong...
      • Re:Easy... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MichaelSmith (789609) on Sunday July 08 2007, @07:38AM (#19788167) Homepage Journal

        Besides, I don't think armed robots roaming the streets would fly with a whole lot of folks.

        A long time ago I heard about a survey of bank customers who preferred automatic teller machines to human tellers because the computerised version is friendlier.

        Now, cops are not known to be friendly, in fact, many problems arise when they depart from established procedures and start setting policy, rather than enforcing it.

        I would say that a robot which is programmed to respond in a particular way would do so all the time. The real problem comes when Government finds out that robot police are so cheap they can put one every ten metres along every street in the city. That would worry me. Probably worth pointing out that while speed cameras pay for themselves we don't have millions of the things on the roads yet, at least where I live.

        As long as we can trust our governments to want to stay popular, they might continue to use technology appropriately. I hope so, anyway.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            It's not that I have a problem with the speed limit being enforced. But speeding isn't the only thing which is dangerous.

            Speed cameras don't do anything about the Corsa which cut me up at 70mph on the motorway yesterday. Speed cameras don't stop the motorist who was all over the lane while yakking on his mobile phone. They don't stop the tailgating motorist who caused an accident which (thankfully) didn't look too serious but could have been far worse.
  • Cops that can be neutralized with a refridgerator magnet! (Hey, it works on Bender!)
  • by had3l (814482) on Sunday July 08 2007, @01:49AM (#19786435)
    Can they stunlock or are there diminishing returns?
  • by Joebert (946227) on Sunday July 08 2007, @01:56AM (#19786487) Homepage
    Anyone want to bet me that this project gets scrapped in less than a year due to "malfunctioning" bots that zap officers more than civilians ?
  • by stephanruby (542433) on Sunday July 08 2007, @02:23AM (#19786649)
    Why only worry about "autonomous robots"? Even remote-controlled robots with stun guns would worry me. Anything that would make it easier for a cop to hurt someone without looking into the whites of their eyes would worry me.
  • 3 Laws (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kramulous (977841) on Sunday July 08 2007, @02:47AM (#19786757)
    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    Isn't this a violation? Oh, wait. It was human programming.
  • by ls671 (1122017) on Sunday July 08 2007, @03:08AM (#19786855) Homepage
    Can I buy one to beat up people that don't pay ?
  • by jon287 (977520) on Sunday July 08 2007, @03:21AM (#19786937)
    ...what have you got to be afraid of? Malfunctioning police robots with giant killer tasers?

    Oh... wait...
  • by Jartan (219704) on Sunday July 08 2007, @04:34AM (#19787349)
    I'd be very hesitant to have robots with tasers running around but I think it's fair to point out there might actually be some really positive aspects to this.

    Cops have caught a lot of flack lately for over aggressiveness and in a lot of those cases the reason is the cop has to be aggressive is to protect himself. With a robot we can let it basically do totally suicidal things to try and subdue the suspect without harming him.

    Also cops can be intimidating when it's not necessarily good to be intimidating. If a big guy with a gun and a nightstick comes after you then your fight or flight responses kick in and you might start acting irrationally. If a weak robot without weapons attempts to arrest you it could lead to much more calm thought and actions on both sides of the fence. Of course thats assuming the suspect to be arrested would act rationally in the first place.
  • Robots or Waldoes? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr@[ ].com ['mac' in gap]> on Sunday July 08 2007, @04:53AM (#19787417) Journal
    If they plan to allow a machine decide whether to taser somebody, expect this idea to vanish in a blinding plasma cloud of litigation. If they're talking about a human being operating this device by remote control, then whoever's at the switch is on the hook legally for any claim of excessive force, especially since the operator wouldn't be in any danger (the usual excuse of an overzealous police officer.)

    -jcr

  • I, for one (Score:5, Funny)

    by MadMidnightBomber (894759) on Sunday July 08 2007, @04:58AM (#19787443)
    Do NOT welcome our new taser-bearing robot overBZZZZZZTT Gaaaah!
  • by DynaSoar (714234) on Sunday July 08 2007, @07:57AM (#19788269) Journal
    Last month a Texas Ranger (state police, not ball club member) fired a taser at a guy who had just poured gasoline all over himself. The spark set off the gas and fried the guy. The ranger is is trouble because he should have known better. Even if he hadn't seen the gas can he could have smelled the gas.

    I'm betting these robots won't be able to smell gas. That's just one situation and limitation. Everything they can't do that a person can is a possible problem.
    • ED209 says ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday July 08 2007, @01:53AM (#19786461)
      [Mr. Kinney points a pistol at ED-209]
      ED-209: [menacingly] Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
      [Mr. Kinney drops the pistol on the floor]
      ED-209: [ED-209 advances, growling] You have 15 seconds to comply.
      [Mr. Kinney tries to run away]
      ED-209: You have 10 seconds to comply.
      [entire room of people in full panic trying to stay out of the line of fire]
      ED-209: You have 5 seconds to comply... four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
      [ED-209 opens fire and shreds Mr. Kinney]

      From the movie Robocop.
    • by tftp (111690) on Sunday July 08 2007, @02:13AM (#19786583) Homepage
      it would apprehend violent/armed criminals who have an intent to do harm

      Intent to do harm??? How can a robot determine that? As a helpful hint, humans have a problem figuring that out - that's why we have courts, juries and appeals. But here a dumb robot is suddenly capable to tell if you have an intent to do harm? For example, can this wonderful robot tell the difference between a weaponless pocket thief and a group of boys armed with super-soakers? Any generic machine would taser the boys and leave the thief alone; to do it the other way around you need to understand far more about our society that a modern excuse for a computer can possibly do.

      P.S. Tasering a child can kill the child; if that happens I have no pity for any official who promoted the idea. At this stage of development of an AI I can trust the computer only to show a letter 'a' on the screen when I press the 'a' key.

      • At this stage of development of an AI I can trust the computer only to show a letter 'a' on the screen when I press the 'a' key.

        I think it can be summarised like this:
        - Current AIs are not clever enough to be in charge of weapons, because they aren't capable of understanding when they should be used.
        - Science fiction AIs are too clever to be in charge of weapons, because they always use them to take over the world.
        On the whole, it sounds like a really really bad idea to give an AI a gun, no matter how smart
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The taser-ing may be too much for the current state of the Art of Computer Programming, but issuing speeding tickets ought to be automatic, for example

          Be careful what you wish for. We have an extensive speed camera network in the UK, and over a period of time they do reduce average speed, but it's received criticism for a number of reasons:
          • Speed cameras used as revenue generators - placed in areas which obviously don't need them but there is likely to be a strong temptation to speed.
          • Used as an alternative