Uber Hires a Robot To Patrol Its Parking Lot and It's Way Cheaper Than a Security Guard (fusion.net) 263
Fusion's Kashmir Hill is reporting about a five-foot-tall, white, egg-shaped robot that one can find at the company's inspection lot near Mission Bay in San Francisco. The K5 robot is a stand-in for a human security guard, and it sports multiple high-definition cameras for 360-degree vision, a thermal camera, a laser rangefinder, a weather sensor, a license-plate recognition camera, four microphones, and person recognition capabilities. The report adds:If someone suspicious comes into the lot, or starts messing with a car, the robot can't tase them or break out any weapons. Instead the robot can set off an alarm, send a signal to human security personnel, and record everything that person does to be used against them later by police. Customers of Knightscope, the company that manufactures the aforementioned robot don't buy the machines. They rent them, usually two at a time, so one can charge its battery while the other patrols. The cost is $7 an hour. "For the cost of a single-shift security guard, you get a machine that will patrol for 24 hours a day 7 days a week," said Stephens, citing wages of $25 to $35 hour for a human security guard.
Sounds good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from the employment issue, I can see a lot of benefits, robots aren't racist and robots aren't rude, and I assume security to actually be better with the robots in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a question: Who assumes the liability?
The programming isn't going to be perfect. I'd be surprised if it's even considered "good". At some point, the biometrics are going to fail and someone is going to be detained on a false alarm. Deus help Uber if that person gets hurt in any way. Or tased by the robot.
In that foreseeable situation who's at fault? The company behind the software? The company behind the robot? Uber for deploying the robot? Would Uber be smart enough for the contract to say that the
Re: (Score:2)
Well fortunately, these robots can't tased or detain anyone but to answer your question it should be like anything else. Robot harms me or crashes into my car. I sue the person that rented the robot and whose property I had my car parked at. They can turn around and sue the robot company if they want but I have no written or implied contracted between myself and the robot company.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the solution is to build a wall, to keep all these robots out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the right strategy from the customers point of view... but TANSTAAFL. From the businesses point of view it's problematic because they lay out the cash cost of the robot upfront but only receive income in a trickle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but notice that they hired the WHITE egg-shaped robot!
Can't do stairs (Score:3)
Can't do stairs
Re:Can't do stairs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't do stairs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and the bad guys can use the stairs in the parking lot to get away also some parking lot's steep ramps in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can 'get away' from the robot. It has no ability to stop them. All it does is roam around, take pictures, and call for help.
In a lot of ways it isn't much more than a roaming camera with some smart abilities for generating alerts so that people don't need to monitor it.
Running up a flight of stairs doesn't really impede that. Given that the robot is designed to chase off criminals even if you run up the stairs it's done its job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
snow (Score:2, Interesting)
2. wait a few years for snow....http://snowbrains.com/san-francisco-ca-rarely-see-snow/
3. break into everything while the useless 400 sensor robot can't get to or from its charging station
4. profit
Waiting for the day (Score:3)
Hires? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hire is also used as synonym of rent. Eg: She hired a dress for her wedding. These guys rent robots. Hire is a perfectly fine word to use.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the frequency Kenneth? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the footage stored and the internal hard drive, or were you planning on staying around long enough to pry it open and find it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry. I assumed 'beat it into parts' was hyperbole. Just what exactly are you planning on using to beat it into parts? Assuming the hard drive is reasonably secured you aren't going to be 'long gone' by the time security shows up. You're still going to be smashing it trying to get at the hard drive when they show up. Sure, you know what a hard drive looks like, but in which of the battleship grey 1/4" tempered steel boxes is it in? Going to grab them all? Well, if I were to design the system I would p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always funny how people jump to 'just hack it'. How do you plan to do that? What protocols is it receiving? What if the camera and microphone can't be turned off remotely but have to be turned off by a physical switch behind a locked access panel? And even if you do turn it off what happens when the server stops receiving transmissions? You're going to send a loop of old footage? Well, a lot of digital footage includes timestamps so the server will probably spot that in a second. Planning on forging yo
How Long??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Faraday cage is NOT 'easily enough done', nor will selling the parts be easy.
Without the faraday cage, you get arrested before you make it home.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the security company could sound the alarm if the contact with the robot is broken. That would be effective against both faraday cages and signal jammers...
Is it better than security cameras? (Score:2)
If a robot costs $7/hour to rent, and you need two of them (for battery changes), that's $122K/year for 24x7 coverage.
Is this roving robot better than blanketing the lot with fixed security cameras? (other than acting as a honeypot to attract people that want to mess with the robot) Whatever logic the robot uses to determine if something warrants an alarm could be applied to the fixed camera feed as well. And you have fewer blind spots since the robot can't see what's happening over in the next row of cars
Re: (Score:2)
Robots have better ability to examine things closely. Security cameras often have major limitations on what they see. For example, typically they can only read license plates if the car is in a specific location (i.e. the entrance/exit). They can't see what's going on everywhere, and can be blocked.
Assume someone rents a big van, enters the lot, parks his van in front of the camera. Get out on the other side (protected by the van), and proceeds to break into a trunk, plants some evidence, or perhaps a G
Re: (Score:2)
Robots have better ability to examine things closely. Security cameras often have major limitations on what they see. For example, typically they can only read license plates if the car is in a specific location (i.e. the entrance/exit). They can't see what's going on everywhere, and can be blocked.
Assume someone rents a big van, enters the lot, parks his van in front of the camera. Get out on the other side (protected by the van), and proceeds to break into a trunk, plants some evidence, or perhaps a GPS tracker, removes the radio, etc. No one can ever tell what happened. The robot avoids this issue.
But won't the big van also block the little robot (assuming it doesn't just run over the robot).
If this robot can read license plates, then a pole mounted PTZ camera can also read license plates, but unlike the robot that can only be one place at one time, cameras are cheap enough that they can be mounted throughout the lot. (1 year of robot rental is $120K, that's a lot of cameras).
Re: (Score:2)
As noted, it's a mobile camera. The big advantage comes from liability and HR savings. You write and tweak an algorithm, and then the little robot does it. Follows a set path, semi-random path, whatever. Doesn't get tired, doesn't get bored, doesn't skip looking somewhere because nobody would hide there. "Remembers" every last detail in a manner that's reproducible in court. If anything happens to the robot, you just upload the work algorithm into the new one, charge it up, and let it go. If the robot misse
Re: (Score:2)
As noted, it's a mobile camera. The big advantage comes from liability and HR savings. You write and tweak an algorithm, and then the little robot does it. Follows a set path, semi-random path, whatever. Doesn't get tired, doesn't get bored, doesn't skip looking somewhere because nobody would hide there. "Remembers" every last detail in a manner that's reproducible in court. If anything happens to the robot, you just upload the work algorithm into the new one, charge it up, and let it go. If the robot misses something, tweak the algorithm and redeploy.
That doesn't really answer my question - why is a roving robot (which can only see a portion of the parking lot at a time) better than dozens of fixed and/or PTZ cameras that are overlooking the entire lot all the time? Any algorithm that the robot uses to detect bad behavior could also be applied to the fixed cameras, with the PTZ's used to zoom in on suspicious behavior for more detail.
So it replaces a security guard (Score:2)
But you need other security personnel to actually triage the situation. And, if those other personnel aren't on-site, a criminal just needs to know what their response time is and plan accordingly.
This isn't going to deter real criminals - once the novelty wears off, it'll likely be less effective than a human. It probably will help with mindless vandalism, though... well, probably not. It WILL help catch them after the fact.
Like a lot of things we read about here, this tech is currently rather half baked.
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge accepted!
Automation is about pushing more wealth to the ruling class and minimizing unavoidable costs. Every time a job like this gets automated, displaced workers head to another employment pool. As those pools get crowded, the salaries go down.
"Plumbers will always make a good living."
"Until the displaced security guards get mini
It's of limited use unless... (Score:2)
You can get a permit for outfitting it with some kind of area-denial device within your presumably fenced and clearly marked property.
If it can emit a painful ultrasonic shriek, fire off an omni-directional microwave that makes your skin feel like it's on fire, or blink a bajillion-candle strobe in your face to temporarily blind you... then it's suddenly useful.
Re: (Score:2)
If it can emit a painful ultrasonic shriek, fire off an omni-directional microwave that makes your skin feel like it's on fire, or blink a bajillion-candle strobe in your face to temporarily blind you... then it's suddenly useful.
Or accidentally bump that laser "rangefinder" up several watts... hey, we were just trying to determine distance to target!
steal the robot (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans can be parted out too. Kidnap the guard, steal their kidney
Techgasm aside ... it fulfills its primary purpose (Score:2)
Cost shouldn't be the primary stat (Score:4, Insightful)
A chicken with a badge would also cost less than a human security guard. Cost alone is not a great stat to compare competing solutions. How well does the robot do it's job compared to a human guard?
Easy defeat (Score:2)
Use whatever id card to let the robot know you are not a suspicious person. It has to have some information for its basis of whether this is a suspicious situation/person or not. For best effect, get a locksmith or mechanic ID which allows you to choose any car in the lot. On your way out run the roving camera down or steal it.
optimistic (Score:3)
$25-$35 for a security guard?
Last time I checked, security guards were paid pretty much minimum wage, with armed security not a great deal more.
Note that this ISN'T even a security guard, this is simply a mobile alarm system that will call security - which you'd still have to have on hand. Sure, it would be a force multiplier, but I also see this silly thing being easily gamed.
Not $7/hour (Score:2)
You can also have a $200,000 Ferrari for only $4.60/hour so long as you commit to paying that price every hour for 5 years.
Her name is Alexa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm disappointed (Score:3)
When I saw the title, I was hoping for an ED-209.
cutting out human competiton. (Score:2)
it was never difficult, just useless (Score:2)
Automating the primary tasks of a security guard were never difficult. A bunch of mounted cameras can do all of that.
Humans have always been better in two very important aspects. The first is the flexibility to handle something weird -- without completely losing functionality. Maybe that comes in the form of duct tape over the camera lense, or a bright flashlight into robot's lenses, or a bucket of water, or spray paint.
But the biggest reason for a human security guard has nothing to do with the human at
I want to steal it. (Score:3)
I have no use for one, but something about the thing makes me want to throw a conductive blanket over it to muffle its RF output, then throw the helpless thing in the back of a pickup truck and whisk it away.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, most career criminals will just blow it away, but I bet the vast majority of punks will be scared witless by one of these things.
Re:Easily destroyed or disabled (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful. If CCTV type systems and bait cars don't stop punks from doing it now, this won't. If anything, they'll likely find it as a tempting target to attack, especially since it's an inanimate object and the crime of attacking/destroying/defacing/etc will be significantly lower then against a person. On the other hand, those punks won't try it with a real person or people around. The why is easy to figure out too, people are unpredictable, thus they could simply have the shit beaten out of them or in the worst case get shot. And the penalties for attacking a person are much higher.
Even dumb criminals have self preservation instincts.
Re:Easily destroyed or disabled (Score:5, Funny)
And yet CCTV has been effective in deterring crime.
Re: Easily destroyed or disabled (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is the penalty for the crime is not enough.
Not true. Severity of punishment has modest value as a deterrence. Much more important is probability of getting caught.
3 strikes and a life sentence
Several states, including California, implemented 3 strikes laws during the 1990s. In the following decades, it had no effect on crime rates compared to states that did not implement such laws.
America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, much much higher than China, Russia, Iran, etc. Our prison system is enormously expensive, and is mostly a waste of resources.
Re: (Score:3)
Several states, including California, implemented 3 strikes laws during the 1990s. In the following decades, it had no effect on crime rates compared to states that did not implement such laws.
It's funny one isn't it? The natural reaction against crime is to punish or lock up the offender, especially in the US. But if you are interested in reducing crime (rather than punishing people), then rehabilitation results in much better outcomes overall
But tough-on-crime makes for better political campaigns, so we end up in the vicious cycle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Guess that solves this problem and we will be back to human guards
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the robot as a security guard is that it is much more predictable than a human patrol - even if it does random walks, etc. you still know that it's not going to pull a .357 on you and plant a .22 in your hand after you're capped.
Re: (Score:3)
Destroying a giant robot alarm system which is bristling with cameras - a perfect strategy for crimes of subtlety.
Re: (Score:3)
I was able to find the Faraday Net Cannon for cheap on Amazon, but have you priced rental trucks lately? Totally impractical.
Re: (Score:2)
Most punks tend to not be scared of CCTV cameras, as a hoodie and sunglasses tend to deal with those. I can see people just tossing a tarp over one of these robots, perhaps a tarp with a drawstring, and that is that.
Worst case, the smash and grab types will just kick the thing over.
This is not to say Knightscope units are not useful. The best thing is to have them supplement the live, armed guards on premises. This way, there is better coverage, and faster detection of would-be burglars.
Re: (Score:2)
damage to property vs killing someone? The robots will get wasted
Re: (Score:2)
At some point there will be robot rights and wasting a robot will be ruled a hate crime. We should all be treating these robot guys with respect, so when that day comes they don't waste us.
Re: (Score:2)
When robots can die like humans die, then robots can have rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easily destroyed or disabled (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead the robot can set off an alarm
Which is known as a deterrent. A quite good one at that.
As for better than a security guard, that remains to be seen. But between an overweight, mouth drooler with a can of pepper spray meandering a parking lot and a mobile recording device capable of blaring noise, flashing lights and bringing lots of unwanted attention, the latter seems better to me.
Just for starters, the latter has a perfect recall of the preceding events. Good luck getting the height or sex or anything useful from the security guards story.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the alarm. The units that dump fog into the interior of the car and flash strobe lights do a lot more to stop an intrusion than the ones that just add to city noise pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Security guards are not just a deterrent, they are something that can go after a threat with the full force of the law on an active basis.
It also raises the level of the crime when live people get involved, from a crime against property to a violent felony, which is definitely going to earn a long prison sentence by any jury out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked at the idea that rent-a-goons get as much as $35/hr. It's more like minimum wage. I would expect the math of this to only work in places like San Francisco or Tokyo where the cost of everything (including labor) is ridiculously overpriced.
Plus, they're renting two of them. So that's $14 per hour. I don't think this idea is going to work at all in the flyover states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easily destroyed or disabled (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the part that has me confused.
Okay, so this is basically a mobile camera with enough intelligence to note when something is happening that is out of the ordinary. Not a bad thing.
But then this comes:
If someone suspicious comes into the lot, or starts messing with a car [...] the robot can set off an alarm, send a signal to human security personnel [...]
So, I still need to pay for a human being to sit around and wait for the robot to signal that something bad is happening.
I suppose I can hire one security guard to "monitor" two or three areas (i.e., wait around for the robot to signal that something suspicious may be happening) and then go check it out, rather than hiring 2 or 3 security guards.
So this seems like it makes more sense for larger areas where one security guard wouldn't be enough to patrol.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I still need to pay for a human being to sit around and wait for the robot to signal that something bad is happening.
You can just call the police. Isn't this what alarm monitoring centers do?
Re: (Score:2)
In my area (greater Oklahoma City), the police do respond to alarms, though they're probably called by the monitoring company--I don't know of any (perhaps banks?) that go directly to the police. False alarms? You get one freebie; after that, you do get a bill for each one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is, I think, the entire point.
Re: (Score:2)
Most criminals won't think twice before blasting this thing into oblivion. Until they are given the same rights as people, these will never be as effective as there is no incentive to not take them out before or during the crime.
Well ... most criminals intent on stealing or vandalizing a car probably won't be armed. But they might learn to bring along a tarp to throw over the robot to blind it.
Re: (Score:2)
The criminals who are most likely to stay out of jail are the ones smart enough to not bother with this parking lot when many, many others are unguarded.
Re:Easily destroyed or disabled (Score:5, Funny)
The criminals who are most likely to stay out of jail ...
Work in the financial industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... most criminals intent on stealing or vandalizing a car probably won't be armed. But they might learn to bring along a tarp to throw over the robot to blind it.
Most criminals intent on vandalizing a car will be content with vandalizing an expensive security robot instead. In fact, I'd bet the robot would be even funner to vandalize than a car. It has all the thrill of damaging something expensive, plus the added benefits of reacting to the damage in a potentially funny way, and the ego boost from having messed with the thing that was supposed to stop them. Additionally, the robot is 100% safe. There's always some risk that if you mess with a human enough, they'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When they can die like humans do, then we can discuss rights for machines.
Re:Bit optimistic on the human pay (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real cost of employment is closer to 3-4 times what the hourly employee makes. People complain about Minimum Wage jobs, have no idea that employing a person costs that much.
Labor burden (Score:5, Informative)
Accountant here. No the burden rate for an hourly employee is NOT "3-4X" their take home pay. Generally speaking it is around a 50% markup of their gross (pre tax) salary. So if you pay someone $10/hour their real cost is probably $13-18 depending on the benefits offered and insurance costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The expense incurred by employing someone is much higher than their hourly wage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point. Criminal attempts to run over guard with car. Guard fires and kills criminal. Guard not charged because of self-defense. His life was in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
"Criminal attempts to run over guard with car. Guard fires and kills criminal. Guard not charged because of self-defense. His life was in danger."
Point being that the criminal usually doesn't attempt to run over the guard, but just to run towards the exit with a guard, that could very easily just take himself out of the way, stubbornly being in the way so he can use deadly force against a non-credible menace.
Third parties' money against a human life should *never* be considered "self defense".
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? That's a clear case of self-defense. What a dumb example.
Here's why arming security guards is a big liability and only done for certain high-value scenarios (like armored cars):
An armed security guard draws his weapon and tries to stop a criminal. The shot hits the criminal, but overpenetrates (or one of the shots misses) and hits a bystander. Guard may be in jail for negligent homicide, and guard's employer is being sued for a huge amount of money.
It's a lot less risky to just let the criminals tak
Re: (Score:2)
A GPS plus cellphone tech installed in the bot mostly negates this threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
K5 was doing fine until the car thieves brought this [memecdn.com] along with them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Gee, it couldn't possibly have occured to the development team there that the robot's vision could be impaired. I sure am smarter than those dumbasses."
Re: (Score:2)
RIP tazed guy, another victim of slashdot's inability to support unicode.