Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics United States

San Francisco Supervisors Vote To Allow Police To Use Robots To Kill (cnn.com) 129

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 Tuesday night to approve a controversial policy that would allow police to deploy robots capable of using lethal force in extraordinary circumstances, according to multiple reports. From a report: The Washington Post reports the vote came after a heated debate on a policy that would allow officers to use ground-based robots to kill "when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and officers cannot subdue the threat after using alternative force options or de-escalation tactics." The Post says the measure still requires a second vote next week and the mayor's approval.

"There could be an extraordinary circumstance where, in a virtually unimaginable emergency, they might want to deploy lethal force to render, in some horrific situation, somebody from being able to cause further harm," Supervisor Aaron Peskin said at the board meeting, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. But Supervisors Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen and Shamann Walton voted against the policy, the Chronicle reported. "There is serious potential for misuse and abuse of this military-grade technology, and zero showing of necessity," Preston said at the meeting. Ultimately, the board adopted an amendment requiring one of two high-ranking San Francisco Police Department leaders to authorize any use of a robot for lethal force, according to the Chronicle.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Francisco Supervisors Vote To Allow Police To Use Robots To Kill More

San Francisco Supervisors Vote To Allow Police To Use Robots To Kill

Comments Filter:

  • Cyberpunk, late but accurate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @11:15AM (#63090932) Homepage Journal

    Many Cyberpunk novels had Florida and NY mostly underwater by now, that's still on course but behind schedule. But the killer robots are pretty much on time, and the international charge towards full corporate fascism continues apace...

    • Re:Cyberpunk, late but accurate (Score:5, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @11:47AM (#63091040)
      Sad to see all the responses so far just this knee-jerk response to a flamebait story. Do you really think what they are authorizing here is killer bots that zoom around autonomously and decide to kill people? Is that what you really think it's going to happen in California? It just makes me question people's grasp of reality.

      This [theguardian.com] is what the story is really about. Not saying it's unworthy of discussion, but 99% of the online responses I have seen so far are irrelevant.

      • Re:Cyberpunk, late but accurate (Score:4, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @11:57AM (#63091076) Homepage Journal

        Sad to see all the responses so far just this knee-jerk response to a flamebait story. Do you really think what they are authorizing here is killer bots that zoom around autonomously and decide to kill people?

        Sad to see so many bootlicking responses to a serious story. Do you really think they're going to stop here?

        Is that what you really think it's going to happen in California?

        California is not what you think it is. Money is in charge, not hearts. Yes, that's what I think is going to happen in California, if actions like these are not opposed.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          Maybe insight like that comes with age, whereas younger people seem to have more blind trust. That whole boiling a frog metaphor has a lot more meaning to someone who has lived through a lifetime of constantly giving an inch until they realized miles have been accumulated thus far. Now that Im in my 50s I am pretty distrustful of everyone these days. Especially strangers. Wasn't it condo associations in CA that started the whole DNA testing of dogshit so they could fine owners? At the heart of it, thats the

          • Wasn't it condo associations in CA that started the whole DNA testing of dogshit so they could fine owners? At the heart of it, thats the sort of nanny police state shit that eventually leads to Judge Dredd in the first place.

            I wasn't sure this was actually a thing so I tried to look it up and not only is it a thing but reportedly the first commercial service PooPrints (Knoxville, Tennessee) started in 2008! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by e3m4n ( 947977 )
              Yea its the sort of thing that screams Karen before that was a metaphor. I never understood creating some sort of 'authority' so you can use to bully people into submission by way of threatening fines and eviction. Why not confront the dog owner, 3 or 4 people using peer pressure probably would do it; if not just go take the dogshit and rub it in the owners face and threaten to kick their ass if their dog shits in your yard again. They are both acts of aggression, one you did yourself whereas the other one

              • Why not confront the dog owner

                How would you know who the owner is if they don't leave a business card next to the dog shit? I've often seen dog shit in public parks and next to sidewalks on public streets but I've never seen anyone hanging around to take credit for it.

                just go take the dogshit and rub it in the owners face and threaten to kick their ass

                Are you a lawyer by any chance? Are you offering free legal services if someone follows your advice and ends up getting arrested? I'm pretty sure what you're suggesting is illegal pretty much everywhere and probably will get you more jail time than the dog owner gets.

      • Re:Cyberpunk, late but accurate (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @11:57AM (#63091078)

        Do you really think what they are authorizing here is killer bots that zoom around autonomously and decide to kill people?

        Of course not. This is step one. Give them time. People need to get comfortable with robots killing people before we let them zoom around on their own.

      • The Guardian story is about using a bomb disposal robot to place a bomb and kill someone who was attacking police and had killed many officers already.

        But should it be a lethal device? Could they have exploded a stink bomb that makes the gunman give up and surrender? Or smoke bomb that impeded his visibility while officers reassemble and get closer? Or some way to set their "phasers to stun instead of kill" mode?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by bodog ( 231448 )

          The famous killer bomb-disposal robot was an on-the-spot decision that likely would have had the same outcome for the deceased killer, so hard to fault that call. Unconsciousness via chemistry or other physics sure sounds like a helpful endgame option.

        • Why put human lives at risk in this situation when you could just send in a drone/robot that's controlled by the good guys outside?

          Seems like a good idea to me. No different then our military using aerial drones. Why risk human life to accomplish our goals when more advanced technology that we developed can handle it for us and safer?

      • Re:Cyberpunk, late but accurate (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @12:30PM (#63091210) Journal

        I think we have a police force that is spending a lot of effort and resources planning to kill people in situations that almost never happen.

        Imagine if they put so much effort into solving homelessness or keeping car windows from being broken.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quall ( 1441799 )

          Huh? So you are in agreement with the policy ?You talk about situations that almost never happen, but the policy outlines that the use of robots will be in extraordinary situations. Meaning that they will be used in situations that almost never happen.

          Unfortunate you can't force homeless people to start businesses or to get jobs. When they are put in jail for drug charges, you get the left protesting how they're being placed into jail for non-violent crimes. So what's your idea to address homelessness? I me

          • I'm complaining that the police have their priorities wrong.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            And solving petty crimes like broken windows? The answer is more policing.

            No, the answer is FBI-level sting operations. The people breaking the windows aren't getting rich. They're stealing for some crime boss who is getting rich. Track the goods back to higher-level players and bring the whole operation down like a house of cards. Traditional policing is barely even part of that, if it is at all.

            Also, better technology can help:

            • Pass laws requiring that all technology costing over $50 must provide a means of locking it to a single user in a way that cannot be readily defeate

            • > Require that cars have enough self-driving
              > capabilities to immediately drive away if someone
              > breaks a window, if it is possible to do so.

              There's not a lot of point to that one. Breaking a car window in SF is seldom part of a car theft. It's more often just to steal whatever is in the car... contents of the glove box, the cargo area in hatchbacks, or to pop the trunk so they can steal whoever's there on sedans and coupes.

              A better counter would be to have cars rigged with 360-degree coverage wi

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                > Require that cars have enough self-driving > capabilities to immediately drive away if someone > breaks a window, if it is possible to do so.

                There's not a lot of point to that one. Breaking a car window in SF is seldom part of a car theft. It's more often just to steal whatever is in the car... contents of the glove box, the cargo area in hatchbacks, or to pop the trunk so they can steal whoever's there on sedans and coupes.

                Yes, I'm well aware of that. And if the car drives away, they can't steal the contents of the car.

                A better counter would be to have cars rigged with 360-degree coverage with cameras to record the features and movements of the thief.

                Nope. Several people I know have Tesla cars that have been broken into. They offered to provide the dashcam footage to the police, and they didn't care. You can't see the car's license plate in the dashcam footage (they're careful about that), and they wear masks. Cameras are useless. The only two things that can realistically work are the car leaving the area before they can steal from you or the car cha

                • Yeah... I guess I should have prefaced everything with the police putting down the doughnuts and coffee, pulling their heads out of their asses, and actually bothering to do their damned jobs.

                  > Now if you could find some way for the car to give
                  > them syphilis, at least you'd be able to alert the local
                  > hospitals to be on alert for people getting that
                  > repeatedly.... :-D

                  But so long as we're escalating to biological warfare here, forget syphilis. Better to give the thieves something less pleasant

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                    But so long as we're escalating to biological warfare here, forget syphilis. Better to give the thieves something less pleasant and more visually distinctive like ebola, leprosy, or bubonic plague.

                    Again, doing something that has a high risk of fatality is problematic. But giving them an STD not only requires treatment, but also requires notification of recent partners, which will wreck their relationships. Call it karmic retribution. :-D

                    Hypothetically speaking, of course. In practice, I suspect it would be considered assault in many states, so it's probably a bad idea, but it's still funny to think about.

        • America prefers to spend money clearing up problems rather than preventing them when it's cheaper

      • I think that someone is going to get killed by a robot that looks like a dog but has an automatic weapon for a head.....so there are bound to be concerns....

        • No concerns at all. The only time this killer robot dog will be attacking you is when you've clearly tried to kill other people or the police.

          The most we could say is this is a waste of money that could potentially be better spent else where in the department. I've zero knowledge of how their department works or it's budget so it's not really something I can say one way or the other.

          • No concerns at all. The only time this killer robot dog will be attacking you is when you've clearly tried to kill other people or the police.

            Yep, just like the death penalty will never be used until unassailable proof is provided that the person is guilty of the crime they are charged with. Ask the Innocence Project how well that works. It would be better if you could ask some of the innocent people executed by a judge and jury rather than spur of the moment calls, but, alas, you can't. For obvious reasons.

      • Privacy geeks told the world what would happen with an unencrypted internet. Then first the clipper chip attempt, then Snowden proved them right.
        Network geeks are warning against the Internet siloing itself up once again, like in the dialup days. Enter GAFAM. This is on track.
        I'll side with the cautious people, thank you very much.

        > Is that what you really think it's going to happen in California
        Not tomorrow. 20 years?

        The discussion is to be started now.

      • They have legalized crime below $1000, taking a crap on the sidewalk, shooting up in downtown and catch and release for most crimes.
        Is having robots flying around killing people such a stretch at this point?

      • "...killer bots that zoom around autonomously and decide to kill people..."

        Have you been to California?
        Jesus Christ this would be the first step to making me want to visit there EVER again. Let's just make the whole place a nature preserve, policed by killer bots? I'd be cool with that. Hell, it's a better use of my tax dollars than most government programs.

    • Corporate fascism in San Francisco? Go ahead and pull the other one.

      Also I don't think that basing your expectations of how reality should play out on dystopian pulp novels is going to lead to useful predictions. You've identified that other common tropes of such have not come to pass, so why you would expect others to is certainly odd.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

        Nothing whatsoever in the story hinted at a corporation, and yet someone's conspiracy theory light went on anyway. And remember, the alt-right is trying to redefine fascism as left-wing. It's authoritarianism that can be either left or right wing, but fascism is distinctly right wing authoritarianism. Although as terms, "fascist" gets tossed out incorrectly nearly as much as "socialist" (probably poli-sci and history being skipped for home-schoolers).

        • Thank you!! If I had mod points. So nice to see someone that understands the distinction between authoritarianism, fascist and socialist.

      • I was attracted to cyberpunk because I found it plausible, and I was (obviously) pessimistic about the timescale. But more and more often I am seeing the relevance of the genre in current events, when I rarely did so before when I was reading the books and playing the games. I don't expect fiction to literally come true, but there are certain elements that I find more and more plausible.

  • What can possibly go wrong?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by GeekWithAKnife ( 2717871 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @11:16AM (#63090936)

    You now have 20 seconds to comply! 19, 18, 17...

  • What could trigger an apocalypse? Man or machine?

    • With the state of software quality these days, the killer robot will likely press the peace button by mistake. With mankind on the other hand, the military actually has spent time planning and analyzing a worst case scenario: what if a soldier disobeys orders and doesn't launch the nukes when ordered to. That's a level of contingency well beyond the average web app.

  • I'd buy that for a dollar! (Score:3)

    by waspleg ( 316038 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @11:24AM (#63090958) Journal

    I can't wait to watch them fall down the stairs.

  • Providing we do not end up with an ED-209 unit, nor people like those managing OCP, what could go wrong, right?

    At least Skynet has not materializedâ¦

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      You were saying?

    • Lack of responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @12:00PM (#63091088) Homepage Journal

      Providing we do not end up with an ED-209 unit, nor people like those managing OCP, what could go wrong, right?

      At least Skynet has not materializedâ¦

      Lack of responsibility.

      When a cop shoots someone now, there's a direct line of responsibility to a person who took the shot. It's investigated, and depending on circumstances the shooting can be deemed reasonable, or due to lack of training, or murder. Or something in between.

      When a robot shoots someone, how does the victim's family determine who's at fault? Will the department hide the ID of the operator of the robot, making it more difficult to see if they have a history of sketchy shoot decisions?

      Can the software be blamed for the shooting? Lack of communication, or erroneous (or correct but misleading) information shown to the operator?

      Overall this spreads out the responsibility for a shooting among many aspects, making that responsibility less likely to be assigned to a human.

      And that is what will go wrong here. Many more shootings will occur, but no responsibility will be assigned to a human.

      • Don't worry, they already don't get in trouble for shooting people, so nothing will change.

        • Instead, they'll train the models for using lethal force on current police practices.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sfcat ( 872532 )
            Humans control these machines so calling them robots is correct for the actual definition of robots but isn't correct for whatever definition you got from bad sci-fi novels. It would be better to call these things drones as at least then you understand there is a human with a controller somewhere. And not for nothing, but in most police shootings the officer says that they were in fear for their life. Kinda hard to make that argument when you are controlling a drone huh? I knew that some folks like drin

    • Providing we do not end up with an ED-209 unit, nor people like those managing OCP, what could go wrong, right?

      At least Skynet has not materializedâ¦

      I absolutely want ED-209s. Easy to escape them. Just walk down a flight is stairs. :)
      Plus the DE-209 just looks cool.

      • That easy escape only works if you are armoured. Otherwise it will shoot you dead way before you reach the stairs.

  • I'm sure we've all see the YouTube videos of how police in the US choose "de-escalation tactics" over "respect my authority" and "stop resisting". Now that this is established in one police force, I expect this will spread across the nation. Also when an innocent person is killed by a robot, and it will happen sooner or later, how do we get the badge # of the operator? Who will be held accountable? This is a great way for the police to be even more anonymous, and it will be abused and will escalate, becaus
  • Codifying Judge Dredd tactics here in the USA, that's interesting.
  • This how San Francisco made the extraordinary, ordinary.
  • ...and now we can't wait to use it.
    It's in their nature to want this.
    Soon, a "need" will arrive and the cops will all have boners.
  • Dallas PD used a robot to kill a suspect several years ago. https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]
  • because if they didn't vote for it than sooner or later a cop doing something stupid would get themselves hurt or killed and anyone who voted against it would be out on their ass after a big run of scary advertisements.

    The trouble is a lack of critical thinking from voters. They see a scary advert about a cop being shot and turn their brains off. They stop thinking "drones killed a lot of innocent people in Afghanistan, we shouldn't have them used against US Citizens" and think "I'm scared of crime!"

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      The trouble is a lack of critical thinking from voters. They see a scary advert about a cop being shot and turn their brains off. They stop thinking "drones killed a lot of innocent people in Afghanistan, we shouldn't have them used against US Citizens" and think "I'm scared of crime!"

      On the one hand, if the use of robots encourages more S.W.A.T.-style no-knock raids because police aren't scared of putting themselves at risk, that would be a very bad outcome, because in all likelihood, more people will die at the hands of police.

      But the flip side of that is because law enforcement aren't putting their lives on the line, they may be more inclined to use non-lethal force to subdue the subjects, knowing that if the bot gets damaged, they can always repair it or replace it.

      In other words, th

      • That's actually a pretty good point. I imagine you could send in a robot that could disable a person without killing them. Sure, the person may suffer a concussion or some broken bones, but that's a lot better then death, right? We just need our non-lethal android that's more or less bullet proof.

        I mean, if you disable the police android, you then got to expect the police death squad next. So it clearly has the opportunity to save civilian lives that may otherwise would of been shot anyway.

        Great for pointin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          That's actually a pretty good point. I imagine you could send in a robot that could disable a person without killing them. Sure, the person may suffer a concussion or some broken bones, but that's a lot better then death, right?

          In mean, in theory, for a hostage situation, you could have a robot that can peek around the corner using a gun that has a digital sight permanently attached, and shoots the bad guy's gun hand and legs with a quarter second between shots, before the gunman even notices that it is even there. For other situations where the bad guy isn't holding a gun to someone's head, a robot that's strong enough and fast enough to simply physically overcome that person might be adequate. Add to that TASERs, stun grenades

  • If you're going to hand the controls to lethal robots to an enforcement group, shouldn't it be given to a force with a proven track record of exercising restraint without them?

    If your record is for abusing authority and demonstrating violent tendencies, how the fuck is that going to get better when risk is lowered?

  • This post reminded me of the five officers killed in Dallas in 2016 [slashdot.org] where they had the shooter cornered for hours and took him out with an explosive detonated by a robot. That situation is what SFPD wants to be prepared for. Dallas PD used it that one time and hasn't needed to use it since. I bet the SWAT team still trains with that robot though.

    In that particular situation I was okay with it being done. The guy was refusing to back down, tried to shoot anyone who got near him, and (IMO) it's likely that a

  • In the 70s nearly no one had SWAT teams locally, now they are a fairly routinely used "arrest team" in many or even most locations. Once you crack the door, the flood will happen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Using SWAT for arrests is safer for both the cops and (in most cases) the suspects. The cops have a lower risk of being killed in a gun battle if they are properly equipped. And most suspects will just lay down their weapons and surrender in the face of overwhelming odds (all but the crazy ones).

      • sure, and the available military weapons have never been misused to abuse the populace in any way at all. /sarcasm

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          the available military weapons

          Actually less lethal then civilian grade weapons. Military ammunition is restricted to FMJ (ball ammo) were civilians have access to various forms of hollow point, expanding or fragmenting ammunition.

          See here [umn.edu]

  • "extraordinary" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stikves ( 127823 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @12:47PM (#63091270) Homepage

    You use the word wrong.

    If the police can only use deadly robots under extraordinary circumstances, then they will damn make sure all circumstances are extraordinary.

    Check the text of the rule:

    As defined in SFPD General Order 8.01, the following situations constitute critical
    incidents: Hostage/barricaded suspect; sniper; citizen shot by an officer; officer
    shot or critically injured while on duty; riots, insurrection or potentially violent
    demonstrations; prison break; explosion of destructive devise; airplane crash;
    officer arrested on or off duty; major fire (five alarms or greater); hazardous
    material incident; earthquake or any natural calamity involving multiple casualties
    or significant destruction of property or the likelihood of either; accidents
    (explosions, traffic, construction, etc.) involving multiple casualties.

    Basically any current use of deadly force can now be done by robots. Yes, they ask for "de-escalation", sure...

    (And of course this includes "riots", every sci-fi dystopia is becoming real).

    • Wait, "citizen shot by officer" counts as a critical incident sufficient to let robots apply deadly force? So basically the first shot is free ('I felt threatened and in fear of my life!'), the rest is up to the robots to mop up. RoboCop was optimistic.

      • RoboCop was optimistic.

        ED-209 wasn't even programmed to wait for you to shoot, just to refuse to drop your weapon...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by marcle ( 1575627 )

      It says "extraordinary," not "critical." I don't doubt your general point, that SFPD may well abuse this capability. As a department, they don't have a sterling reputation. But what you're quoting is "critical" incidents, and the SF Supervisors' resolution doesn't use that word. They only talk about "extraordinary" incidents that a high-ranking officer would have to approve. As far as I can tell, this wouldn't apply to a run-of-the-mill "critical" incident.

    • If the police can only use deadly robots under extraordinary circumstances, then they will damn make sure all circumstances are extraordinary.

      Yeah just like SWAT. I mean it's not like police would ever send their most brutally armed units into a random dwelling on the basis of some anonymous tip and kill unarmed people ...

      "Extraordinary circumstances" is not a good definition to use, especially when the party in charge of the robots is also in charge of considering the circumstances.

  • come on... always sold worst case, then abused for all cases.

  • Insert obligatory "what could possibly go wrong" here.

  • On a related matter . . . (Score:3)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @01:18PM (#63091348)
    . . . the motion required requiring said lethal robots to loudly and repeatedly exclaim "EXTERMINATE" failed to make it out of committee.

  • At least the robot won't need his buddies to intimidate his girlfriend and cover up domestic violence. ACAB

  • It's simply a matter of outsmarting them. You see... killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, you send wave after wave of your own men at them until they reach their kill limit and shut down. Easy peasy,

  • People need to stop, step back, and consider WHY police officers are allowed to use lethal force. The only reason this is allowed by society is to prevent further loss of life. Unless we're talking about a hostage situation where there's an immediate risk of death by hostages, robots should not be using lethal force. If it's purely a robot on offender scenario "less than lethal" options are the only ethical choice (even though such options are sometimes lethal that is not the intent when used properly).
    • I'm done with ethics. Have you seen how society is going? We need penalties where criminals are actually scared to get caught.

  • The robot is not doing the killing anymore than a knife or gun does the killing. The killer is the person wielding the weapon.

    The robot makes an encounter less risky for LEOs.

  • The military's been drone-striking brown people for years and the cops wanted in.
  • One thing we can agree on is that robots aren't cowards because they have no feelings.

  • â¦as of 2018 all 11 supervisors are known to be members of the Democratic Party.

    Interesting. At least we can be sure the killer drones will have some peace and rainbow flag stickers, so they will surely be the good kind of killer drone!

  • Bad local kids as young as 10yo committing murder and hit/run for fun. A lone car at 3am would be a good target. Flash lights, it it runs - shoot.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close