San Francisco was involved in controversy earlier this month to allow the police to deploy robots armed with deadly weapons. After initially lit the technology, the supervisor advice reverse course Due to a generalized public outcry. For the moment, killers are prohibited in San Francisco, but the controversy has put the problem under the national projectors. People are increasingly aware that this technology exists and that some police services want to deploy it.
Our essential position is that the police should be prohibited from using robots to promulgate violence. Robots should not be used to kill, control, push, force or control or harm people. To judge by the almost unanimous protests in San Francisco and Other citiesThe public agrees.
It is simply too dangerous to prepare robots. While anyone can find hypothetical stories in which the use of police killers can seem reasonable, such “cinematographic scenarios” are only the small point of a large pyramid of cases in which the police use force – many of which are completely unjustified and takes place in a legal context This protects almost all officers from responsibility. Since 2013, more 98% of police shots did not resolve criminal charges against the officer. And in recent years, the police have continued to kill thousand people per year – with blacks three times More likely to be killed by the police than whites.
In front of the town hall of San Francisco, a demonstrator protests against a proposal that would allow the San Francisco police service to use armed robots on Monday, December 5, 2022.
AP photo / Jeff Chiu
As we have supported for a long time with regard to both drones And Other robotsThe tools that allow the force to be used remotely and without risk for the operator make it inevitable that the force will be overused and increases the chances that it is used with negligence, reaching involuntary targets. The signals between the remote operator and the robot can also be degraded due to communication and control problems – or even hacked. Below Appropriate costs / advantagesThe negative effects of the introduction of armed robots into the police would prevail from all the advantages.
The public is not alone in his opposition to the violence of robots. There is a general consensus in the application of the law flight Robots – aka drones – should Never be armed in national contexts. A New York Police Service in 2021 is experimenting with Dogs robot This did not include any discussion on armaments was always interrupted by the public opposition, and the first manufacturer of leg robots, the dynamics of Boston, which makes the robot dog, to forbid THE armament of his robots, and says he’s going Revoke the license of any customer who arms them.
Since the controversy of the NYPD, however, a few Police services continued to use robot dogs, and customs and border protection (CBP) announcement it was experimentation With technology on the border, in both cases without arms. But another robot dog manufacturer, Ghost Robotics, has already built a rifle robot marketed for the army (the company’s slogan: “The best friend of the Warfighter”). In 2016, Dallas The police killed A shooter during a mass shooting using a Jerry-Rigged wheels robot with explosives, in the first and the only use of the robot of the deadly force. And now we have seen the San Francisco police pushing against the ban on armed robots.
Regardless of the number of protests that certain police and manufacturers can arouse on their lack of interest in armaments, the possibility will continue to drag as a prohibited fruit unless it is illegal.
Other robot rules
However, it seems likely that national law enforcement organizations will find uses for robots even if the armament and the use of force are prohibited. While technology continues to improve, they will be deemed too useful not to become generalized in society – and the police will not be an abstention island because technology is regularly deployed for various uses. In fact, the use of robots on the ground by the police bombs teams is already widespread, just like the to use of drones.
Nevertheless, the use of technology technology to interact with civilians is a unique question – a different beast of the use of robots in industrial, employment or cleaning contexts, or even by teams of police bombs . The police engage in heavy interactions and responsible for power with civilians. Robots, no matter how they are used, represent an extension of the power of officers to act in the physical world.
Police robots can in the future present risks that we cannot imagine now, but there are threats of civil freedoms beyond the armament which are already apparent. Robots can get into private property and collect videos and other data, which can create risk of confidentiality. This is already a major problem with flying robots, of course. Mission creep is also a concern. For example, the main use of use envisaged for police dog dogs is to help situations in hostage and scout barricade, by delivering food, etc. (Drones are also marketed for this purpose.) But if the technology is sold to the public for this purpose, it is likely to extend to all kinds of other uses. In Honolulu, the police used their robot dog to homeless camps.
Fear and dehumanization are also a risk. Years of Science fiction have started people to find frightening robot dogs, but such fears should not be rejected as irrational or “simply atmospheric”. Some police services have used militarized equipment scare And intimidateA tactic called a “strength spectacle”. Such tactics cool the dissent and, when used regularly, degrade the quality of life of people. A robot dog can be, strictly speaking, just a tool, but the fact that people find it scary.
Given these potential problems, what should decision makers do when communities decide to approve the ground police robots for various non -violent uses? Our recommendation would be that communities put the following principles in law:
No armament or use of force.
Robots (including drones) should not be equipped with weapons of any kind designed or intended for use against people, or authorized to use force of all kinds against people, in particular by pushing, pushing them or by supporting them. The robots of the type of bombs of the type already deployed, which are not designed to interact with humans, would be authorized.
No private property entering without a mandate.
No robot on the ground should enter private property unless a police officer has the legal right to be there, by judicial mandate or “demanding circumstances”. The courts will most likely force this policy under the fourth amendment, but in the meantime, it should be promulgated. Communities should also require a mandate to monitor in any situation in which a police officer is required to obtain a mandate to carry out electronic surveillance.
No use without community authorization.
Too often, we see the police deploy controversial high -tech devices without saying it, not to mention the communities they serve, using money from sources such as corrupt Confiscation of assets programs or federal subsidies. The robots must not be deployed, except approved by a municipal council of a community or another surveillance organization elected in accordance with our registered “Community control over police supervision. “Elected officials should also consider limiting the authorization of the deployment of robots to a list of listed uses. If this later blocks unforeseen use which, according to people, makes sense, the police can easily return to the municipal council and Asking for permission, and an open discussion can follow.
Transparency.
Communities cannot debate high -tech police tools if they do not know them. The residents of San Francisco only learned from the SFPD robots due to a Recent state law This forced police services to disclose military technology and weapons in their arsenal. Communities who decide to authorize robots on the ground of the police should follow the recommendations for Public opinion and audit and efficiency Follow -up that we have already called where the police wish to deploy drones.