On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved use Police robotics can be used that can be used to kill. The robots – which, according to a spokesperson, “can be used to incapacitate violent, armed, or dangerous suspects who pose a risk of loss of life” and may have explosives attached to them during the mission – emergency for situations.
The San Francisco police aren’t the first to mess with such a techno-dystopian future. In 2020, the NYPD begins using robot canines — Spot model from Boston Dynamics — In some situations. The four-legged robot was used sparingly, once in a hostage situation and at least once during an incident in a public accommodation. But the decision was later reversed after fierce protests from New York residents. In-spite of this, The Los Angeles Police Department is now ready to act on the spot – which cost around $300,000 to achieve – following positive feedback at the police commissioner’s meeting.
Spot, a four-legged dog-like robot made by Boston Dynamics
(Getty Images)
The real-life militarization of robotics and technology Slowly becoming the subject of public scrutiny, years later its development was eye-watering. This has brought forth ethical objections from the public and from within the teams whose technology is being requested to be used.
Hollywood robotics inventor in film short circuit famously described how he had never intended to create a weapon, but instead developed a device with a very different purpose. “Originally I had non-military objectives in mind. I designed it as a marital aid,” he says in the film. But the military in the film quickly recognized the benefits of such technology: “It’s the ultimate soldier. Obeys and never questions. That (apparently fictional) exchange underscores how technology can easily can be weaponized, even if the developers don’t intend to or can’t even figure out how it can be done.
In recent years, several robotics designers and engineers have come forward to say that they do not support weaponizing their projects. In an open letter “To the Robot Community and Our Communities,” Boston Dynamics wrote: “We pledge that we will not weaponize our advanced-mobility general-purpose robots or the software we develop that enables advanced robotics and we will not support others to do so. When possible , we will carefully review our customers’ intended applications to avoid potential weaponization… We recognize that our commitment alone is not sufficient to completely address these risks, and therefore we urge policy makers to to work with us to promote their safe use and to prevent their misuse. We also call on every organization, developer, researcher and user in the robotics community to build, authorize, pledge not to do, support, or enable weapon attachments. However, the use of Spot by police departments — and the latest announcement from San Francisco — shows that there are gray areas that such developers may not see and may not necessarily Can’t stop.
The simple fact is that our police are already responsible for so many incidents of violence across the country. more than 1,000 persons news of loss of life to police officers across the country in 2022. fatal police shootout disproportionate Affects black and Hispanic people. Homeless people have died at the hands of the police—and the LAPD in particular— without the consequences to the police, That’s all the public knows. cause Secrecy of police commissions across the countryThe real picture is probably much messier than we know. How can we expect the use of a lethal robotic device in the hands of such police officers – and what recourse will there be to the victim or their family if they are killed by such weaponized technology?
While there are legal avenues for pursuing wrongdoing by individual, human police officers, even these very incomplete, union and commission regular slope Law enforcement from public inquiry. and in cases where the police officer Huh held to account – as in the case of Culver City Police Sergeant Eden Robertson, who was believed to have publicly harassed a resident on a Facebook Messenger board – It is not uncommon for the officer’s actions to be overlooked later in their career, or for them to simply move to a different city or region and join another police force. Robertson, for example, who was reportedly “disciplined” for his actions. not only promoted from sergeant to lieutenant After publicly harassing a resident, but he was also given a Special Recognition Award.
Adding robotics gives the police an extra layer of protection against accountability. How can someone prove a wrongful death lawsuit against a robot? How many robot operators in law enforcement will hide behind the idea of a malfunction, or not be able to fully understand the situation on the ground? ACLU’s words Here are the relevant ones: “Robot police dogs open up a wide range of nightmare scenarios, from being weaponized to being made autonomous. We cannot allow this dangerous technology to go unchecked on our roads.”
i don’t wanna live in hollywood realitywar games Scenarios where people use technology like a game while simultaneously participating in horrific violations against human rights. There is no way we would think of introducing such weaponized technology before addressing the systemic issues that make it so dangerous. taking away qualified immunity Laws that shield police officers from police accountability and expose the unnecessary secrecy of police departments would be a good start. Instead, it seems like we’re going in the opposite direction.