Singapore Police Deploy Snitch Bots To Test Searching for 'Undesirable Social Behaviors' (gizmodo.com) 155
"If you're wandering around Singapore anytime soon, take some time to wave hi to your friendly neighborhood snitch bot," writes Gizmodo:
Singapore's Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) will be deploying two robots named "Xavier" that the agency says use cameras with a 360-degree field of vision and analytics software to detect "undesirable social behaviors" in real time.
First reported by Business Insider, the robots are designed to detect activities such as public smoking, violation of pandemic restrictions (i.e., groups of more than five people), and illegally selling goods on the street. Other behaviors the agency said the robots can snitch on include the use of motorized vehicles or motorcycles on pedestrian walkways and "improperly parked bicycles." The Xavier robots roll around on a "patrol route pre-configured in advance by public officers," though they can deviate as necessary to avoid slamming into pedestrians or other obstacles. The plan is for the two robots to relay reports of such activity to a central police hub as well as confront violators directly with warning messages, with the first three weeks of deployment starting on Sept. 5 in Toa Payoh Central.
The three weeks are a "trial period," reports ZDNet. But they also note that the program includes "an interactive dashboard where public officers can receive real-time information from and be able to monitor and control multiple robots simultaneously."
One official said in a public statement that "The deployment of ground robots will help to augment our surveillance and enforcement resources."
ZDNet offers some context: Seeing robots being used in Singapore is not uncommon. Last year, Singapore deployed Boston Dynamics' four-legged droids, dubbed Spot, to its parks, garden, and nature reserves to remind people about social distancing. A fleet of Lightstrike robots was then rolled out at one of Singapore's general hospitals in a bid to thoroughly disinfect hospital rooms of pathogens. More recently in May, the Singapore government launched a one-year trial of using autonomous robots to facilitate on-demand food and grocery deliveries.
First reported by Business Insider, the robots are designed to detect activities such as public smoking, violation of pandemic restrictions (i.e., groups of more than five people), and illegally selling goods on the street. Other behaviors the agency said the robots can snitch on include the use of motorized vehicles or motorcycles on pedestrian walkways and "improperly parked bicycles." The Xavier robots roll around on a "patrol route pre-configured in advance by public officers," though they can deviate as necessary to avoid slamming into pedestrians or other obstacles. The plan is for the two robots to relay reports of such activity to a central police hub as well as confront violators directly with warning messages, with the first three weeks of deployment starting on Sept. 5 in Toa Payoh Central.
The three weeks are a "trial period," reports ZDNet. But they also note that the program includes "an interactive dashboard where public officers can receive real-time information from and be able to monitor and control multiple robots simultaneously."
One official said in a public statement that "The deployment of ground robots will help to augment our surveillance and enforcement resources."
ZDNet offers some context: Seeing robots being used in Singapore is not uncommon. Last year, Singapore deployed Boston Dynamics' four-legged droids, dubbed Spot, to its parks, garden, and nature reserves to remind people about social distancing. A fleet of Lightstrike robots was then rolled out at one of Singapore's general hospitals in a bid to thoroughly disinfect hospital rooms of pathogens. More recently in May, the Singapore government launched a one-year trial of using autonomous robots to facilitate on-demand food and grocery deliveries.
Good (Score:2)
I rather have these in PUBLIC areas, than getting randomly being shot on the street. Oh wait, I guess we don't see being shot and maimed/killed as an invasion of privacy, so we're against it. Am I right? Come on man, we can regulate/random audit the bots and also have severe penalties for the one-off situations that someone abuses it. We can have strict laws that ensure that evidence from the bots can only be allowed to solve ultra-violent crimes and rape. I don't see what the bots can do as being worse th
Re: (Score:2)
Hah! Thanks for the good laugh.
These things have never gone well in human history, because at some point you have some kind of asshole either in the government or in the institutions that do something highly immoral with the information obtain there.
Why would it work now? What's the safeguard
Re: (Score:2)
It's Singapore. Nothing they do there has any particular relevance to things people do anywhere else.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Singapore even engages in judicial caning:
https://singaporelegaladvice.c... [singaporelegaladvice.com]
Re: (Score:3)
What freedom would I be giving up by having these robots?
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't know what you lose by ubiquitous government surveillance, and what happens in societies that have that, then you're ignorant beyond all belief.
Re: (Score:3)
no, the criminals and gang bangers in the cities don't care about gun bans. In facts, guns are already banned and illegal for them and look what they're doing. Meanwhile, there are suburbs with more per capita guns, ammo sold over the counter, yet no violent crime, how strange eh.
eliminate the criminals, and there would be a huge drop in homicide.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, I'd like to know which fantasy country of yours has eliminated criminals.
And I like to know which fantasy country of yours that can detect when someone decides to become a criminal by shooting up a church or a school.
How many kids have to die in school shootings before you stop being a psychopath?
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd like to know which fantasy country of yours has eliminated criminals."
Japan hasn't eliminated criminals, but they have near ZERO gun crimes. Its mostly due to extreme gun control. But its rare for even criminals to have or use guns in a crime. Their crime rate is also a fraction of the US or most of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Japan has a generally law abiding culture, their rates of ALL crimes are relatively low.
There are many other countries with very few guns, but which still have significant levels of crime - including violent crime performed with things other than guns (eg knives). Mere possession of a gun is usually a crime in most countries except under specific circumstances.
Countries such as South Africa have extremely high crime rates including violent crimes and homicides, and yet gun possession is strictly regulated t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think monoculture explains low crime? Then explain Singapore .. Singapore is very much not a monoculture .. it has people of Malay ethnicity (brown Asian muslims), Indians (hindus), Chinese (??), and Europeans (christian or atheist) .. and has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Therefore, monoculture is not a requirement for low crime. Btw, Russia is "monoculture" too and has a very high homicide rate.
Re: (Score:2)
>"They don't have to care about gun bans. Gun bans reduce the guns in circulation"
Gun bans strip good people of the ability to protect themselves from scumbags who would seek to pray on them. In a country where you could actually snap your fingers and all guns actually disappear (which is ABSOLUTELY NOT possible) it still WOULD NOT be much safer. Want evidence? Consult pretty much ALL OF HISTORY. Those criminals with stronger physical abilities would continue to pray on the weaker using whatever to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Australia"
Which still had/has shootings after their gun ban. And average mass shooting deaths actually went up, too.
Despite a near total firearm ban and confiscation in Australia, it had no effect on the already downward-trend in homicide rate at all.
Australia has the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. And the rate of violent crime went UP after the gun ban.
You were saying?
Re: Good (Score:2)
Assuming that is true, which it is not, I googled a few names .. that is still not enough info to make a decision. You have to at least look at does homeschooling increase the probability of success to the median homeschooled. As in maybe it does produce some brilliant people but then the vast majority may not be successful. I mean if there is a million dollars across the road, and all you have to do is cross it blindfolded during at random time of day, would you take that bet? Sure you might be immensely s
Re: (Score:2)
And very ancient. Science these days takes a lot of specialized instruction and institutions that can support the science infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
I am talking about Science Nobels.
Both John Eccles and Irene Joliot Curie went to school.
From their bios on Wikipedia (which have references you can check), you can verify/dispute if you have alternate info:
John Eccles attended Warrnambool High School (now Warrnambool College) (where a science wing is named in his honour), then completed his final year of schooling at Melbourne High School.
Irene Joliot-Curie .. Irene's education did take a slight "break" from school .. but it was so rigorous that she still
Re: (Score:2)
and the people cowering defenseless because they're completely disarmed.
By this logic, there are no mass shootings in the US because people are armed...
Dumbass.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If guns are harder to buy, e.g. you can't get them at Walmart or avoid background checks by going to a gun show, there would be fewer guns in circulation. Over time the numbers would fall and gun violence would decrease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
All those weapons require that you put yourself at considerably more risk by getting close to the target to use them. Contrary to what you see in movies, thrown knives are not that effective.
If we flip your argument around we could ask why not allow people to have WMD, nuclear bombs, anthrax and the like. What's the point of banning them if someone can just go and buy a gun?
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to what you see in movies, most handguns are also not that effective. Most homicides by pistol happen from a distance 10 feet. Even with rifles, most of the time it's relatively close (though there are obvious exceptions, most homicides are not committed by snipers).
Re: (Score:2)
>"All those weapons require that you put yourself at considerably more risk by getting close to the target to use them."
While that is absolutely true, it doesn't mean violent criminals won't use them (because they will). And if you are weaker, you have little chance against such attacks.
>"If we flip [the] argument around we could ask why not allow people to have WMD, nuclear bombs, anthrax and the like. What's the point of banning them if someone can just go and buy a gun?"
Because "WMD, nuclear bombs
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't give a flying f**k who you kill, distance to target doesn't matter. Odds are that the majority of the victim's of drive-by shootings were total strangers to the miscreants with the handguns.
Re: (Score:2)
If you know someone is trying to shoot you, you can hide or you can shoot back if you also have a gun.
If someone is determined to kill you, they will try to take you by surprise using whatever weapon they have available to them be it a car, a knife, a chainsaw, a bomb, poison etc to limit the chance of you getting away or fighting back.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Good luck trying to stop zip guns and archery equipment.
This good feels bullshit solves nothing but does everything to bring us closer and closer to all out facism.
The really bad guys (government) are made even badder, the low level street criminals have to improvise just a bit more, and the honest are left in fear and shitting in their underroos in fear of their government lord and masters.
Re: (Score:2)
If cars are harder to buy, e.g. you can't get them at a dealer or avoid background checks by going to a private party, there would be fewer cars in circulation. Over time the numbers would fall and car deaths would decrease.
This argument can be made for anything. Doesn't mean it's right.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if you wanted to reduce the number of cars that would certainly be an effective way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you plan to find/eliminate the criminals? Ask nicely and offer them a flower? Put an ad on facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
But it gets better, some jurisdictions want to allow silencers. So now you can get popped and no one will hear it.
You have watched far too many movies. But then again, you used the term "wingnut", so you can't be completely trusted regardless. Lemme guess, lot sof "repugnican" usage in your household as well. My uncle, who hates "democraps" would probably have more in common with you than you imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Your thinking is all wrong. A couple subcultures are causing most the gun crime, if they weren't in the stats we'd be like a european country for violence. Meanwhile, people like me and my neighbors have lots of guns and ammo, but we're not causing the crime, savages are. Don't take away my rights because of savages. In fact, I'm guessing those savages are running wild because of people like you, creating square miles of people with no accountabillity, no respect for property and human life, not respons
Re: Good (Score:2)
"Your thinking is all wrong. A couple subcultures are causing most the gun crime, if they weren't in the stats we'd be like a european country for violence"
Those 'subcultures' have 4 year olds talking like mobsters. And if you ban guns, they either get them illegaly, or we hear about more brutal slashings. And the same Bugsy Malone speaking (without the class that goes with the old school mafia) will see the snitchbots as something to revile and mock, and it will be a badge of honor to really fuck o
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
Just remember that Singapore is so strict that it outlaws chewing gum, and drug smuggling -- including very small amounts -- gets a death penalty, and they penalize "internal possession" of drugs consumed before arriving. Forget to flush after using a public toilet? That will cost you. Same-sex relationship? Criminal. Pornography? Banned, including walking around nude in your own house.
Re: (Score:2)
Same sex relationships are not criminal in Singapore.
And except for death penalty on drugs: what actually is wrong with your stupid attitude?
Pornography is tricky, as only possession is banned.
including walking around nude in your own house. You are just silly. Everyone walks around nude in his own house once a while.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com] makes it very clear that same-sex relationships are effectively criminal there. The rest of my criticisms have abundant support at your favorite search engine.
Don't be so quick to parade your ignorance where everyone can see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Once in a while yes, just like everyone jaywalks once in a while or exceeds the speed limit etc.
You either don't get caught, or the police choose to overlook minor infractions because arresting someone and processing them is too much effort for a minor crime. That doesn't mean it isn't technically illegal.
If you walk around naked in your own house and noone notices because you have the curtains closed etc, you get away with it and noone knows or cares. If you parade around naked in front of an open window a
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work, robot watching doesn't stop bullets. Let me tell you about our police cameras in certain high crime areas in Chicago on poles, with flashing blue lights to let the darkies know they're being watched.
Oh, you think those few cameras that are there and announce their presence so people can avoid them don't work. I wonder why that could be?
Murder rates are highest they've been in 25 years, they're near worthless... murder clearance rate is about 15 percent
I think the whole "Don't snitch! Gangs are good! Fuck the cops! Yay crime!" attitude of those high crime areas are to blame
You're being will to give up freedom for zero more security against bullet holes in your carcass.
No one is giving up freedom. That is where you are being stupid. You are in PUBLIC. Cameras in PUBLIC do not take away your freedom. They record you ignoring your civic and social responsibilities. What you are upset about is that they may catch YOU
Singabots (Score:2)
This kind of crap can be pulked in a country like Singapore where people have been conditioned (monstered) into acting like good little androids, but in the US, these will be dropping like flies as people smash them, shoot them down (yes, even liberals will be doing that), stealing and hax0ring them to do mischief, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think being shot in public is privacy? These robots can protect privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving up your privacy doesn't ensure you do not get shot. That's the entire problem with your argument. It's not even about whether or not giving up your privacy is worth the security, but that it does not add any security.
So you are better off not giving up your privacy because all you are gaining is a false sense of security.
Re: Good (Score:2)
All of a sudden we need fucking Skynet to "protect our privacy". O_o
Let the Singadronians have their big brother toys. We don't want this crap in America.
Snitches get stiches (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume stabbing snitch bots would be considered undesirable social behavior?
Re: (Score:2)
I assume stabbing snitch bots would be considered undesirable social behavior?
This is why you can only do this in places like Singapore. Here in the UK, they will all end up at the bottom of the nearest canal within the first 48 hours.
They will need to be able to defend themselves before they are any use in most western countries, and that is a whole different kind of police robot. Personally I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Defend themselves? Ha, the police robot is going to get disabled so fast. I hope they film that because it would definitely go viral.
Re: Snitches get stiches (Score:2)
"This is why you can only do this in places like Singapore. Here in the UK, they will all end up at the bottom of the nearest canal within the first 48 hours"
Heh, in the US:
BOOM BOOM BOOM SPLASH SPLASH CRASH.
Wouldn't even take 48 hours.
Which would you rather? (Score:2)
Be afraid to go out in public because you might get shot or raped, or be afraid to go out in public because a robot might film you? I'm supposed to believe some people rather be raped & murdered than seen by a robot?
Re: (Score:2)
City of Chicago has tens of thousands of cameras, and yet the violent crime has gone up in last 25 years. The cameras don't stop bullets or raping dicks. They do take away something though, and maybe you should learn what societies with constant government surveillance do to their citizens. You might even be interested to know they even shoot, rape and torture their citizens too among other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Crime is in fact lower in the areas with high surveillance, most of those crimes occur outside the view of cameras. You know cameras only cover a imperceptibly small area of Chicago right? Chicago is 6 billion square feet. A camera can cover less than 1000 square feet. So even 10,000 cameras can only cover one half-millionth of Chicago. Basically, they need about 1 million cameras to have a meaningful impact on Chicago crime. It might be reducible using drone patrols I guess. References: https://www.chica [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're starting to see the picture. Cameras == robots, same thing, same result
Re: (Score:2)
Iggymanz, I think backslashdot is actually saying that a) where a camera is present, evidence shows a drop in crime and b) a drone on patrol provides more coverage than a fixed camera. Give those two theorems (backed by data), backslashdot suggests that these robots on patrol would likely help decrease crime in the areas they patrol. Not eliminate crime, as noted by backslashdot's final paragraph, but reduce it. Put another way: cameras do help, so anything that increases camera coverage would help more.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's a lie, evidence here in Chicago shows violent crime steadily increasing even as they now have tens of thousands of cameras. You need better facts, sounds like you're swallowing agenda driven camera marketing spew.
Re: (Score:2)
The violence overall is increasing. But if you read the citations provided by backslashdot, it is increasing notably slower in places with high density of cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, I neither use nor sell any illegal thing. I know historically what happens when government has ubiquitous surveillance. You must be young and ignorant of history, unbelievable the stupidity of people here.
Re: (Score:2)
Socially undesirable is not criminal (Score:2)
Startup Idea (Score:2)
OK, I think I'm going to build a bot that detects durian, and sell it to Singapore. Every bus and train will have their durian protector. Who's in?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I think I'm going to build a bot that detects durian, and sell it to Singapore. Every bus and train will have their durian protector. Who's in?
Too late. I just sold them an app where they can film and snitch on each other. No robots needed.
how long before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stick wads of chewing gum on it.
Re: how long before (Score:2)
Where guns are banned...
T-shirt cannon.
Re: how long before (Score:2)
20 minutes. 25 minutes if weather is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: how long before (Score:2)
First tagger to hit one gets +500 street cred.
Re: (Score:2)
public smoking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: public smoking (Score:3)
I was going to shake my head at Singapore, but even as an on-and-off smoker (thus biased), I must admit that their regulation at least reads pretty reasonable: the constant being "don't smoke where other people can't get away from your smoke". Sounds reasonable to me.
Even the car and windows thing only applies if the smoke would otherwise be expelled out of your car window into nonsmoking areas.
Of course I don't have any clue as to how well this translates into practice...
Re: (Score:2)
In the closet, lights out, under a blanket, with an air filter..
Why do they even still sell tobacco there?
Re: public smoking (Score:2)
Actually you can, apparently, smoke in a park, on the streets, or on a sidewalk. Just not where people *need* to gather, like cafes, public offices, bus stations etc.
I fail to see the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes smoking is one of those things that directly affects other people.
Anyone nearby is forced to inhale the smoke even if they don't want to, it is at the very least highly unpleasant for non smokers and at worse very harmful to someone who already has breathing difficulties. It can also cause those who are trying to give up smoking to relapse.
While i'm generally in favor of freedom, the line has to be drawn where it causes harm to others.
Re: public smoking (Score:2)
Yes smoking is one of those things that directly affects other people.
[...]
While i'm generally in favor of freedom, the line has to be drawn where it causes harm to others.
Yeah, well, it's a bit of a mixed package, I'm afraid. Difficult to make a blanket discussion out of.
Everything affects other people, to varying degrees. It's one thing to be forced to spend the day in a crowded public office queue where half the people are smoking; a whole other thing to wait at a loosely populated bus stop where one guy smokes. Add to that that most smokers I know of (and I know many, most of my friends used to smoke at a certain period of my life) will go out of their way to not blow smo
Re: public smoking (Score:2)
It can also cause those who are trying to give up smoking to relapse.
...also, as a nonsmoker turned smoker turned nonsmoker turned nonsmoker... etc, this is a BS argument. Everything causes a relapse to someone who actually wants to.smoke: good jazz, the shit in the morning, your coffee break, compiling a linux kernel, your favorite pub with mediocre beer and a stained pool table.
Holding a bypasser smoker responsible for that isn't fair. It's more an expression of jealousy because that smoker still gets to enjoy his cigarette, while this trying-to-be-nonsmoker doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
so if public smoking is banned in the city, where can you actually smoke?
In your house where you won't be effecting other people
Re: (Score:2)
People often tend to smoke outside their homes, because even smokers often don't want the smoke inside their homes. If you smoke outside - eg on a balcony, the smoke will often drift into other people's properties.
Drones for good (Score:5, Funny)
It went down well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what *she* said about the pleasure bot.
Why is this news? (Score:2)
... the robots are designed to detect activities such as public smoking, violation of pandemic restrictions (i.e., groups of more than five people), and illegally selling goods on the street. Other behaviors the agency said the robots can snitch on include the use of motorized vehicles or motorcycles on pedestrian walkways and “improperly parked bicycles.”
So, this robot is basically doing all the basic mundane light policing stuff that human police officers on foot patrol all over the planet have already been doing for centuries. Why is this news? All this changes is that police forces will now be able to shift human officers from foot patrol to more pressing and important tasks and leave the boring and mundane stuff up to robots.
Fire cures problems (Score:2)
Shape of things to come (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chewing gum is an thing they look for (Score:2)
Chewing gum is an thing they look for
disgusting habit (Score:2)
Who saw this coming? (Score:2)
I guess it's becoming more and more obvious that Skynet will speak Mandarin.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Privacy is this magical sauce that allows everyone to get their way well enough that we can all get along."
I *LOVE* that entire posting you just made. Wish I had modpoints. i also wish more people understood just how important privacy is.
Unsocial behaviour? (Score:2)
'public smoking, violation of pandemic restrictions (i.e., groups of more than five people), and illegally selling goods on the street. Other behaviors the agency said the robots can snitch on include the use of motorized vehicles or motorcycles on pedestrian walkways and "improperly parked bicycles." '
These are more commonly known as misdemeanors or public offenses.
Re: (Score:2)
These are more commonly known as misdemeanors or public offenses.
Keep in mind, we're talking about Singapore where chewing gum can get you jail time
I love it! (Score:2)
Robots have come for the beat cop.
This might not be a bad thing
Dear Singapore (Score:2)
I sit from afar, raise my finger and point it in your direction. With a mighty sound I go
"HA HA HA!"
What Undesirable Social Behavior"... (Score:2)
... will the bots be looking for in Singapore. My guess is that flipping the bird to the bot will be on the list of undesirable social behaviors---possibly #1 on the list.
The e-scooters to have company (Score:2)
Looking forward to when they deploy this to the US, and Youtube videos of them being set on fire, thrown into water fountains, thrown from the tops of parking garages, tipped on their sides and used as skateboard props, etc... become available.
Punishment or reward (Score:2)
Punishments or rewards are the mark of a lazy leader. They never investigate the reasons as to why people are doing what they do. And all punishments end up doing is breaking down any discourse and increase hostility towards any authority/police you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well when you go to a foreign country you should familiarise yourself with their laws and customs before you go there, not expect them to operate in the same way as your home country.
How many foreigners have gone to the US and got shot because they're not used to people having guns?
For instance in the US, the police generally have to assume that everyone is armed and have to ensure that you are handcuffed and have been checked for weapons. In Singapore although the police are armed, virtually no civilians w
Re: (Score:2)
>"How many foreigners have gone to the US and got shot because they're not used to people having guns?"
That are committing crimes and not following police instructions when confronted? That is a good question. Perhaps you can supply some data on that? I suspect it is pretty remarkably low.
You have a good point about the whole "culture varies from country to country", but I don't think there is much problem of peaceful foreigners being shot by US police.
Re: Clean streets are nice and all... (Score:2)
I hope people are not pointing to Singapore as some kind of authoritarian sucess story. Underneath the glitzy facade is a bunch of caged circus animals beaten and threatened into performing. A pressure cooker just ready to explode at any moment.
Don't be surprised if a citizen there flakes out and murders as many people as possible with a bomb or any other weapon they can get their hands on.
Re: Despot-O-Matic 9000 (Score:2)
Imagine the druggies mistaking this as the robo potty from the future. :}
Re: Despot-O-Matic 9000 (Score:2)
Believe me, they will see things that they wish to unsee.
I just gave the PG-13 version of what will go on with these robots when the druggies have at them. It's best for all if I just leave it to the imagination.