Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
They lied to the shooter, who they had cornered, and told him the robot was delivering a phone. In fact it was a bomb.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
In a democracy with rule of law, the police have to be held to a higher standard. If not, they are just an armed gang with a licence to kill. It also undermines any concept of negotiation or surrender. The next person will go out guns blazing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.
“Yeah, physically a live round can go in,” Daza-Quiroz answered. “Absolutely. And you’d be getting a shotgun round.”
The problem is that one can mistake the term for machines with some form of autonomy, while, based on my understanding, they're "just" remotely controlled ones.
Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?
I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”'
He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views.
The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy'
His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther.
There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.'
Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”'
Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.
The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this attempted deflection seems not credible at all.
In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.
Note also that samfbiddle similarly accused another commenter upthread of not reading his article (without evidence) despite that the commenter's criticism was congruent with a reading of the article (i.e., there was no reason for samfbiddle to assume that the critic hadn't read his article, and anyway voicing as much violates the site guidelines).
Yes, this sort of bikeshedding is the cost of clickbait titles--seems like this could all go away if authors/editors stopped using clickbait titles; not sure why we should sneer at the community for highlighting the misleading headline. Moreover, such sneering violates the site guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
(emphasis mine)
.......
..... do you honestly think that if you give police remote control vehicles with shotguns attached to them that they WONT use them for violence and killing? These are police we are talking about here, they come from a culture of violence and extreme fear.
These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans.
Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
Robots act autonomously and automatically. The hypothetical case where we might give such an autonomous device lethal capabilities is an ongoing discussion. Most people agree that could be a very bad idea.
But a human controlled device? I don't see the problem.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...
Personally, I don't think opening a thinly veiled accusation with "just some friendly advice" does much to mitigate the rudeness.
It would be appropriate to call it by it's modifier, a remote-controlled robot.
Even if you disagree that this is the "common" understanding, the sarcastic exaggeration is meaningless.
I agree with another commenter, that a more reasonable criticism would be that it should be called a "remote controlled robot", rather than just a robot.
According to Merriam-Webster, a "robot" is: > 1. a machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects) > 2A. a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly line) > 2B. a mechanism guided by automatic controls > 3. a person who resembles a machine in seeming to function automatically or in lacking normal feelings or emotions
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot
Maybe a remote control device could fit the definition of 2B, but it's a stretch, as that's so broad that an alarm clock could be a "robot".
Whatever kind of machine this is at the end of the day it's a force multiplier. That's why it is used. It lets law enforcement leverage more force against people and it allows them to do so with further impunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdokBQW7Suc
It's always disconcerting when people don't see a problem with that.
How much force projection should law enforcement have anyways?
How much is too much? Is it subjective or objective?
What are the checks and balances on this kind of equipment?
In the way most people colloquially use the word "robot", that's not necessarily true; surgical robots aren't autonomous, for example, nor are telepresence robots. The word "robot" is actually surprisingly vague. A dishwasher operates autonomously, but many people don't consider it a robot. Elevators are vertical L5 autonomous vehicles, but most people don't consider them robots, either.
More importantly, though, if a device has software-activated weapons and is connected to the internet, it is theoretically possible for a hacker to load code onto it to make it an autonomous death machine, even if its OEM firmware was intended for human-controlled teleoperation only.
I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people.
Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.
Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after.
But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone.
On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.
I get that cops can't be trusted to only use it in this scenario (as implied by the author), but if hypothetical "better police officers" were available, should we allow it then?
EDIT: theoretically the robot (even if remote controlled) could aim better.
Emphasis mine. Is it not okay to shoot at someone who's shooting at your partner?
For police, it's "you only kill when a life is in danger". It doesn't have to be your life.
Doesn't the chief of police have to personally authorize the use of one of these robots? Do you find these scary even when used appropriately? Or is your fear that this is a slippery slope that ends in an autonomous robot sticking a shotgun in your face and demanding your ID?
The conversation they had shows slippery slope in action:
> After a brief silence, Commissioner Jesse Hsieh asked the next question: “Does the department plan on using a live round in the robot PAN disruptor?”
> The answer was immediately provocative. “No,” Daza-Quiroz said, before quickly pivoting to hypothetical scenarios in which, yes, just such a shotgun-armed robot might be useful to police.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
you can put any 12ga. cartridge in it, and that means a lot of things.
https://www.cdvs.us/product/12-gauge-dragons-breath/
To be fair, that would imply a realistic approach to wildfire management, so it’s much less likely than the wildflowers thing.
Would robot police allow police to be less scared for their lives & ask questions first instead of the fear that exists in some situations that cause them to shoot to quickly?
Could this lead to a system where people can be judged properly in a court system instead of to quickly?
In many cases the deadly force wasn't actually necessary or the need was so absurdly induced by the wielder that they should be culpable by the outcome. But the line is really hard to see when you weren't there, in their shoes, so we tend to defer judgement. At the very minimum this does provide a limited check on the use of deadly force.
For a killbot it couldn't be more clear: the operators life was not at risk, erasing the fiction that it was automatically excusable for personal protection and forcing us to justify the killing on a more complex basis.
Not that we can't-- I think sometimes we could, but probably in many situations we can't. E.g. right now, a gunman "safely" barricaded in a house eventually gets stormed in and killed. In a killbot equipped world, I don't think we could morally send in a killbot-- I think we'd have to wait for them to try to escape at least. And if we couldn't kill them with a killbot, well then that opens questions about the morality of doing the same thing with people.
I'd feel better about bots with less lethal weapons: nets, incapacitating gasses, tranquilizer darts, stun guns, etc. They may be radically less effective but one of the advantages of keeping the operator safe from harm is that a less effective weapon is easier to justify: its failure won't get the operator killed.
Aside, -- the specific application here with an interchangeable cartage just sounds like asking for trouble when someone leaves the wrong munition loaded.
So many (usually) non-lethal options but, no, they choose kill. I guess the big advantage is that there’ll be no need for subsequent prosecution. Handy, that.
Anyone who spends even a modest amount of time looking at incidents of justified use of lethal force can quickly determine that an officer having a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to themselves or others is enough to justify the force.
Often times this reasonable fear is justified by actions that take place in under a second. A furtive movement towards a waistband in the right context will almost always qualify.
Articles like this that push an unfounded narrative are simply pandering for clicks/views while failing to even attempting to understand/explain the motivations for such a tool are worse than intellectually lazy. I think they quite likely result in needless excess deaths.
It really isn't rocket science to imagine a lethal robot like this being deployed in a situation which results in deescalation, where the robot operator doesn't have to take a shot where an officer would have been forced to. And to suggest that an officer is somehow going to feel more inclined to shoot someone because its pushing a button vs pulling a trigger just shows a truly impressive amount of bias.
I'd much, much rather send in a lethal robot than an officer to a situation where a use of force is likely, and I really can't fathom any logical argument that putting an officer in there is somehow going to result in less use of force. Unless your world view is that every officer is just trying to execute as many people as they possibly can.
Just watch the 10 seconds here. Guy has stolen a car, walking away from officers, yells "shoot me" and "fuck you fuck you!", digging in his pockets, then quickly points at the officer in a drawing motion. If this was a robot POV instead of an officer, zero chance anyone pushes the button to shoot the guy. Why would you and deal with risking your entire career/life? You're still on the hook for all the consequences of unjustified use of force, and you have the time to wait and verify if the suspect has a gun, so you do. The officer on the other hand is put in an impossible situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SeiCU55e3s&t=104s
I'd much rather have a lethal robot be put in that above situation than an officer, and I'd love to hear anyone explain otherwise.
(Also, I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be "casual", not "causal": `“legal precedence justifying the causal use of weapons”`, but I ain't no english major)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine
2: https://news.yahoo.com/drug-cartels-attack-enemies-spread-17...
if it became common usage to strap a firearm to a drone of some sort, then that looks like a contemporary use, and perhaps private citizens would commonly use armed drones to patrol property and provide a personal bodyguard.
https://www.armadainternational.com/2017/10/dogo-ultra-light...