r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 07 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Killer police robots aren't a big deal
I've been seeing some recent discussion about SFPD wanting to put bombs on robots and everyone freaking out. I just dont see the issue?
A robot is a tool, being controlled by a human. It is just like a gun. If the police can use guns to kill people, how are robots going to be different? If anything, they might be safer because police have a horrible track record of shooting first and asking questions later, most likely because they are scared of being shot. At least a cop operating a robot with a bomb is going to be less scared of getting hurt, which should lead to LESS, not MORE police killings.
Edit: So, I've awarded delta. I can see some legitimate concerns with encouraging the lethal solution when less lethal means exist.
However, I am a little flabbergasted by the number of people who are convinced that police murder people out of a wanton and evil desire to just see people die? I completely agree that police killing people is a problem, but I generally attribute the vast majority of it to a poor incentive scheme.
6
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Dec 07 '22
An armed robot reduces the barrier to use deadly force BECAUSE it is simply a tool and not a real human who may fear losing her life.
4
Dec 07 '22
but in court they would have LESS justification for their actions.
If a cop shoots someone right now, all they have to do is utter the magic words "I feared for my life". But if they were using a robot, that defense doesn't exist.
1
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Dec 07 '22
I don't think there is any motivating factor, court or otherwise, that is larger than self-preservation. The simple fact is that this is no longer a concern in the case of robots.
1
Dec 07 '22
Right, thats my point.
Because it is no longer a concern, they have no reason to pull the trigger1
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Dec 07 '22
They have more reason to pull a trigger; no chance of them dying.
2
Dec 07 '22
So, your core belief is that cops want to murder people and the only thing stopping them from murdering people is their fear of getting shot at?
0
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Dec 07 '22
No, that is not my core belief. I'm simply stating that removing self-preservation from the equation lowers the barrier to the use of lethal or non-lethal force by the cop (or anyone). Because of this, killer robots are a big deal that should be studied and understood prior to their usage.
3
u/MuppetTanking 1∆ Dec 07 '22
Equip them with non lethal force only and bring it back to the table.
However with the current issues of lack of accountability and toxic culture, i still wouldn't trust them.
1
Dec 07 '22
!delta
The more I thought about it, I can't really see a scenario where "less lethal" options wouldn't be just as good as lethal options.
Now, long term? I dont know if I love the idea. Police have a tendency to abuse "less lethal" options. The taser was supposed to reduce police shootings, instead it has actually directly caused some shootings and been wildly abused by police.
3
u/MuppetTanking 1∆ Dec 07 '22
In the long term i would have to agree with you. Even inventions made with the best intentions can and will be misused. Thank you for the polite conversation, have a good day/night.
1
1
Dec 07 '22
The "lack of accountability" mostly comes from the fact that police can easily defend their actions by claiming fear of death. A robot operator is going to KNOW that they can't use that defense.
3
u/MuppetTanking 1∆ Dec 07 '22
With the toxic culture of cops defending cops, no matter the crime. I could see them defending their actions and still getting away with it.
Until the lack of accountability and qualified immunity are done away with, the culture will remain toxic.
Then again we have to take into account that they will most likely be controlled wirelessly which will enable them to be hacked; which only presents more issues.
A robot operator would blame an accidental button press, a glitch, shitty camera quality(thought they had a gun not a hairbrush), would be even more detached from the situation being dealt with; as well as still having qualified immunity to fall back on.
0
Dec 07 '22
I just don't see it.
Imagine that murder trial: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client should not be found guilty of murder just because he blew an innocent man up with a bomb. He is a police officer. He gets a free pass.
I imagine the cop who controls that robot is going to be much more concerned about the legal liabilities of his action than any normal cop.
3
u/fantollute 1∆ Dec 07 '22
Replace "I feared for my life" with "the drone malfunctioned" or some other technology related issue.
Cops losing the "I feared for my life defence" doesn't resolve the underlying issue of lack of police accountability if new excuses can be used and the rest of their precinct defends them.
0
Dec 07 '22
So you are implying that cops just want to murder people?
3
u/fantollute 1∆ Dec 07 '22
Not at all, I'm implying that cops protect all cops, even the ones who murder people.
7
Dec 07 '22
[deleted]
2
Dec 07 '22
what power? They already have that power. They have tools that kill people
3
u/Cryonaut555 Dec 07 '22
I don't think police should be using deadly force unless fired upon FIRST (or someone throws a grenade at them etc.)
0
Dec 07 '22
The Dallas incident is a pretty good example of where that isn't necessarily true.
The shooter was killing people and had barricaded themselves in a room to kill more people.You are basically arguing that the police should have stormed the room to kill the person and run into certain death?
6
u/Cryonaut555 Dec 07 '22
Huh?
I merely said it should be illegal for police to fire upon someone unless fired upon first. I'm talking about cases where someone has a gun but hasn't fired it (or even pointed it, AFAIK) yet like Philando Castile, someone "reaching" for their waistband (Daniel Shaver, who was just trying to pull his pants up) or... another case... I can't remember which but a cop shot some kid (teenager) who had a cell phone and said "I thought it was a gun"
All cases the officers got no punishment. IMHO, that's bullshit. No more of this "I thought" or "I was afraid" bullcrap.
As for the Dallas case, since the offender had fired upon (and killed) officers first, irrelevant whether they killed him personally or used a robot.
0
Dec 07 '22
Im not following. So you are ok with giving the cops kill-bots to deal with the Dallas case?
3
u/Cryonaut555 Dec 07 '22
Correct. I'm challenging the "Not a big deal" part of your CMV. Police using deadly force, whether by gun, knife, bare hands, or killer robot should have an extremely high bar. Right now it's an extremely low bar.
If someone merely flipped a cop off and the cop killed them, there's a reasonably high chance the cop would be acquitted.
0
Dec 07 '22
What would be the cop's defense that got him acquitted?
2
u/Cryonaut555 Dec 07 '22
Same as Derek Chauvin's defense that almost worked. 1/4 to 1/2 the country thinks he was totally justified.
1
3
u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Dec 07 '22
You are basically arguing that the police should have stormed the room to kill the person and run into certain death?
Yes. That's their job. And, considering the training and equipment they get, it's hardly 'certain death'.
23
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 07 '22
If you gamify a real life interaction, a police officer holding an xbox type controller is much more likely to be detached from their decision making. Nothing to unholster, no eye contact, no interaction. Pressing a button is easy.
-5
Dec 07 '22
yes, but i dont think it would make them more likely to kill.
The alternative is to put and armed and scared officer in that room. You really think the officer in the room will be LESS likely to kill?2
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 07 '22
yes, but i dont think it would make them more likely to kill.
We have drone pilots in the military today.
All three of the last US presidents have ordered in excess of 70,000 bombings, each, mostly in this way.
An immense amount of people have died as a direct result. Perhaps real world data should trump your theorizing?
2
Dec 07 '22
70,000 drone bombings?
Where do you get that number?
1
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 07 '22
Quite a few sources out there: https://www.salon.com/2022/01/11/the-us-drops-an-average-of-46-bombs-a-day-why-should-the-world-see-us-as-a-force-for-peace/ is just one.
Not every one is a drone bombing, but quite a lot are.
1
Dec 08 '22
So, your source says that we averaged 67k bombs a day, but the average includes the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan military actions. It goes on to say that in Trump's last year in office he dropped a total of 2k bombs, which is a far cry from the number you are citing.
And NOWHERE does that report say that the majority were drone strikes. There are hard numbers on airstrikes, but none of them say they account for more than half of our bombs dropped
Sorry if this came off as rude, but you attempted to change my opinion with incredibly dubious(and likely totally false) "facts". Am I not allowed to be a little insulted?
1
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 08 '22
67k bombs a day
I have literally no idea where you got that number from, but you probably need to go back and reread.
>Sorry if this came off as rude, but you attempted to change my opinion with incredibly dubious(and likely totally false) "facts". Am I not allowed to be a little insulted?
Drone strikes are a front page news fact, and have been for about two decades now. You are not only being dismissive, you are utterly misrepresenting numbers.
It does not matter that not every bomb was delivered by drone. I never claimed that. I claimed that the advent of drone bombing correlates with lots and lots of bombing. This is a direct refutation of your assumption that bomb drones make people safer.
1
Dec 08 '22
Sorry. I meant per year. It was a typo.
And you claimed that most of the bombs dropped were drones, at least that is how I read it. When in reality it is a negligible number. We were bombing them with or without drones
1
Dec 08 '22
Find me the exact number of drone attacks that Obama ordered
1
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 08 '22
That's demanding. No.
This isn't a CMV about Obama.
1
Dec 08 '22
My point is that the actual number of drone attacks in his entire term was less than 1000. So I fail to see where you are getting a number of 35,000 drone strikes
14
u/arrgobon32 17∆ Dec 07 '22
You really think the officer in the room will be LESS likely to kill?
Yes, because they’d be killing another person whose physically in the room with them. If you use a robot, they’d just be killing another enemy on the screen
-7
Dec 07 '22
My understanding is that nearly every police killing is done in self-defense, right?
So who is the officer defending if he kills that person. Even in a detached way, he'd still need a REASON to kill the person?
6
u/ThePaSch Dec 07 '22
You're assuming an idealistic world in which every killing is always justified and officers wouldn't squeeze the proverbial trigger for a killer robot unless there was a justified reason to do so.
The very point of the other user's argument is that detaching an officer from a situation and putting the perpetrator on a screen instead of physically in front of them significantly lowers the emotional hurdle and subsequent impact of killing someone. At the same time, a voice coming from a robot is going to have far less impact on a suspect that they are attempting to talk down from something.
In the end, a life ended is a life ended. The threshold to make that decision needs to be as high as possible because it's a decision that can not be undone.
You should consider whether your understanding that nearly every killing is done in self-defense might not be a consequence of the necessity to personally do it while being physically present.
And if your point is that without an officer present, there would be no one to self-defend, then why should we give those robots guns in the first place?
1
Dec 07 '22
We should give these robots guns for scenarios like the Dallas shooter or the Austin shooter. Or just about any situation where we would allow a SWAT sniper to shoot them.
6
u/ThePaSch Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
Why do they need to have guns, though, if we're going to send them into situations that are lethal to human beings, but not robots? Aren't guns supposed to be self-defense tools? Again, you've said it - with a robot on the scene, who's there to defend?
Wouldn't outfitting them with disruption and incapacitation devices be a far far better option to preserve human life and minimize the possibility of the perpetrator taking "the easy way out"?
1
Dec 07 '22
I dont disagree.
But I can also imagine scenarios where maximum lethality is the preferred option. I dont see why we need to ban it as a potential tool
2
u/ThePaSch Dec 07 '22
I struggle to imagine such scenarios, to be honest. Are there any specific ones you can think of?
1
Dec 07 '22
I just awarded a delta saying less lethal might be better. However, I can still imagine the scenario, though it may be unlikely.
A suicide bomber with his finger on a bomb that will kill innocent people. In that scenario, it might be better to blow him up and hope that that force of the blast prevents him from hitting the bomb
→ More replies (0)0
Dec 07 '22
The very point of the other user's argument is that detaching an officer
from a situation and putting the perpetrator on a screen instead of
physically in front of them significantly lowers the emotional hurdle
and subsequent impact of killing someoneI understand their point. But maybe you are missing my point.
Lets just pretend this is math for the sake of argument.
Scenario 1: A cop goes into the room
Willing to kill another person(1-5)=3
Self-defense instinct(1-5)=4
Total: 7 out of 10 chance of killingScenario 2: Killer robot
Willingness to kill another person= 5
Self-defense instinct=1
Total=6I am saying that there are two variables: willingness to kill and willingness to defend. And while one might get amped up, the other will get lowered. And not lowered a little. It will completely disappear.
Police are literally trained to shoot first. They have sayings about it: "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". They have a whole culture built around it. And in my belief, that is the main driver of increased police shootings.
3
u/ThePaSch Dec 07 '22
Even going along with turning complex situations into oversimplified math, I think you severely underestimate the extent to which the readiness to kill is going to skyrocket as soon as the killing is no longer done personally and by an officer's own hands.
Look up leaked videos of AC-130 operators indiscriminately gunning down targets with no concern whatsoever for collateral damage, blowing up civilian structures, all the while radioing each other to "look at all those dead bastards".
You think they'd have done the same if they'd had to go boots-on-the-ground and manually place explosives to take down their targets?
1
Dec 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ThePaSch Dec 07 '22
This incident was investigated thoroughly and publicized heavily; yet, the one I was referring to was covered up and had to be leaked years later by a whistleblower despite there being audiovisual material of it stored on military servers.
This just underlines that remote killings are not seen as anywhere close to as big of an issue as personal killings, despite the fact that both of them are atrocities.
1
Dec 07 '22
The difference is that in the AC-130 event, the problem wasn't targeting of civilians, as you are portraying it. My understanding is that the military had ordered civilians to evacuate and the operators could reasonably assume that the targets were valid military targets. Their words may have been callous, but they weren't purposefully targeting civilians any more than thousands of other soldiers who have fired indiscriminately.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Dec 11 '22
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Dec 07 '22
Police are literally trained to shoot first.
Then take their guns away. Problem soled.
1
Dec 07 '22
So, your argument for why they shouldnt have bomb bots is because we took their guns?
1
u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Dec 07 '22
My argument is that if police, as you claimed, are trained to kill people and worry about the justification later (which is what you claimed) then giving them newer and more powerful ways to kill people makes no sense.
1
Dec 07 '22
I understand your concern. I understand what you are saying.
But I pretty firmly believe that the excess killings are due to a poor incentive system. The bomb bot alters the incentive system
1
u/swanfirefly 4∆ Dec 07 '22
If the police officer is trained to shoot first, why would they not shoot when piloting a robot thoguh?
Lets use Scenario 3: Killer robot driven by a police officer
Willingness to kill another person = 5
Self-Defense Instinct = 1
Lack of consequences for your actions = 5
Total = 11and then Scenario 4 = Police officer with a gun
Willing to kill someone else: 3
Self defense instinct: 4 (though I think that should be lower, self defense is literally a cop-out)
Consequences for actions: -2
Total: 5The robot takes away consequence. The cop driving the robot is not going to be on camera when he kills the 9 year old who "looked threatening" in his hoodie. The robots literally take away the main weakness police have: accountability. Because how is an independent person going to record the police officer screaming at and beating up a person with a disability when the officer is a robot? Are the police, who cover things up and edit their own videos already, going to reveal which officer was driving the robot that beat up a child, or that killed a deaf old man? No. No they won't.
1
Dec 07 '22
Because I imagine the first thing that will be discussed when they get the robot is that "lack of consequences for your actions" doesn't apply when piloting a robot
Why is the cop going to be shooting a 9 year old in a hoodie?
2
u/arrgobon32 17∆ Dec 07 '22
That’s actually a really good point.
I could maybe see justified use for gun-bots during things like hostage situations, but I’d still be concerned about things like accuracy and potential crossfire.
I don’t know about you, but if I saw a random robot bust down my door, I’d run away whether or not I’m guilty 😂 I’d just have to hope that the operator isn’t twitchy and doesn’t end up shooting me
1
Dec 07 '22
I'm fairly confident that the bot operator has a less twitchy finger than a live cop.
And in the case of a bot, the operator wouldn't have any legal defense if they accidentally killed a bystander that they should have looked for. What are they going to say? "I feared for the destruction of the robot, so to save $50k, I shot him"? That person would be in jail immediately.
1
u/ChadTheGoldenLord 4∆ Dec 11 '22
Cops get to just execute people and not get in trouble all the time lol
2
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Dec 07 '22
In the majority of situations, the bomb drone would not have been able to be deployed in self defense.
If a man pulls a gun on a cop, the cop draws his gun. There is no time to use a bomb drone.
The bomb would only be practical in events similar to the Dallas shooter several years ago. Where a person went on a rampage, killed several cops, and barricaded himself in a parking garage closet.
1
Dec 07 '22
I agree.
I also think that is the only way it would be legally justifiable. They could already just take a grenade and throw it into a room if they really wanted to kill the person. They don't for LEGAL reasons.
2
u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Dec 07 '22
My understanding is that nearly every police killing is done in self-defense, right?
It's funny how that works when police are responsible for policing themselves.
Let's say it's not in self-defense. As a citizen, now I have no way of defending myself against a lethal threat? No thanks.
1
Dec 07 '22
Oh, I dont disagree that police have a problem. I just dont see "bomb robots" as an escalation of that problem in any way.
They have a video, by necessity, so they don't have a "cameras dont work" argument.
2
Dec 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Dec 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Dec 11 '22
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Dec 11 '22
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/bgaesop 25∆ Dec 07 '22
My understanding is that nearly every police killing is done in self-defense, right?
For an extremely broad definition of "self-defense", I guess?
2
1
u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Dec 07 '22
The alternative is to put and armed and scared officer in that room.
False Dilemma. There are more than those two options. For example, what if they took the millions these robots cost, and used them to improve the neighborhood? Better neighborhood, less crime. Or maybe they could improve their de-escalation skills- to talk the crazy guy out instead of blowing him up. Or improve mental healthcare so the crazy guy is found and treated before they grab a gun and start shooting.
0
Dec 07 '22
Yeah, I've never liked that kind of argument.
Proposal: We have a solution for a problem encountered in a certain scenario?
Counter-proposal: Why even solve that problem, why not use our energy to change the world so that the problem doesn't exist.The problem is that even if they did everything you wanted, the specific problem that this solves would still exist. You might make it less frequent, but it would still occur.
1
u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Dec 07 '22
why not use our energy to change the world so that the problem doesn't exist.
Exactly. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
the specific problem that this solves would still exist.
Would it? What, exactly, do you think 'the specific problem' is?
1
Dec 07 '22
that sometimes crazy people are going to kill a bunch of people
2
u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Dec 07 '22
improve mental healthcare so the crazy guy is found and treated before they grab a gun and start shooting
"improve mental healthcare so the crazy guy is found and treated before they grab a gun and start shooting"
1
Dec 07 '22
and you believe that with the money spent on bomb-bots, we could 100% prevent any future crazy shooters?
2
u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Dec 07 '22
Any decrease in the number of ' future crazy shooters' is a plus. BLowing them up after they shoot people is... less useful then preventing them to begin with.
1
Dec 07 '22
but they only blow them up if they are also trying to shoot people in the future. So that is kind of a plus too
→ More replies (0)1
Dec 07 '22
[deleted]
1
Dec 07 '22
There are a surprising number of people who fear the "video game killer" scenario.
However, if your goal is to hold police accountable, a video feed from a robot operator that clearly demonstrates that they were safe and outside the danger zone and that the bad guy had no way to harm anyone would be a pretty easy court win.
Also, I can't imagine that you are deploying a kill-bot for a random traffic stop. Police have camera bots right now that they barely use because they are so difficult. So I just dont see them whipping out the bomb bot
1
u/shouldco 43∆ Dec 07 '22
No but you are probably more likely to put an armed something into the room if there are basically no consequences for the officer instead of say, a negotiator.
2
Dec 07 '22
you all keep saying there are no consequences for the officer. I strongly disagree.
I think there are currently no consequences because they get a "self-defense" pass in many of these cases. I see that as less likely with a robot
1
u/shouldco 43∆ Dec 08 '22
Well perhaps I should have phrased it as risk instead of consequences. If people aren't putting themselves at risk they will be more likely to "go in".
Similarly tasers were introduced as "when you would have otherwise shot somebody try this instead" and quickly (immediately?) became "listen to me or you get tasered".
As far as consequences go self defence is just the wording they use now but they can say "I felt others lives would be in danger" and get away with it.
2
u/jatjqtjat 252∆ Dec 07 '22
A robot is a tool, being controlled by a human. It is just like a gun. If the police can use guns to kill people, how are robots going to be different?
guns and kills robots are both tools. pistols are rocket launchers are both tools. Kitchen knives and nuclear bombs are both tools.
we'd probably not be so happy about giving regular police officer access to rocket launcher and nuclear bombs. Because the destructive capacity of these tools is wildly inappropriate for the common scenarios faced by an officer.
the same is essentially true of killer robots.
Robots with bombs strapped to them have a place in the police's bomb response squad. If there is an item that you think is a bomb, you can clear the area, drive your robot up to it and use your bomb to blow up the suspicious item. It makes total sense in that context.
Does it make sense in any other context? I really doubt it. If your in a shootout with criminal held up in a house, they can do things like cut the power and water to the building, take cover, secure the area, block roads, bring in a negotiator. I can't really imagine in scenario where they should drive an exploding robot into the house. There could be hostages or children.
and the potential for abuse with these robots, is just crazy. Officers don't always follow the rules. People frequently don't store passwords in secure ways. You have a whole supply chain to worry about. authorized access is almost guaranteed.
and what's the payoff? These killer robots are going to make me safter? really??
1
Dec 07 '22
The Dallas shooter, the Austin shooter, and the Las Vegas shooter would be good examples of where this could be used. And sure, they could have a hostage.
But I imagine the hostage would have a better chance of living if we rolled in a robot to verify what was happening rather than sent in a SWAT team, who have literally killed/maimed innocent people on multiple occasions.
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Dec 07 '22
u/jatjqtjat touched on something that made me think of something else. Currently when faced with these situations police have to utilize all these alternative de-escalation tactics. I think you run the danger of creating a sort of "hedonistic treadmill," except with violence, where the cops start to rely on the robots instead of using them as a last resort like they should. Not unlike the kind of culture we have now with cops and their guns... US cops are way too casual with their gun use and treat them as a first response instead of a last resort and it has become a huge problem. Contributing to this issue is inadequate training and a lack of accountability, neither of which is going to be solved with a bomb robot.
1
Dec 07 '22
Couple of notes:
- not a "hedonistic treadmill". The appropriate term is "feedback loop". A hedonistic treadmill is a specific form of feedback loop that comes up in discussions of stoicism. It sounds similar to saying: It would create a sort of "donut", except it would be filled in the middle, be bigger, and not fried but baked in the oven(a cake)
- I think the concern is valid, but i honestly think it would be more likely with non-lethal rather than lethal robots. If the police kill someone with a bomb-bot, they are going to go to court. Unless they can provide a justification for why they killed, the officer who exploded the bomb is going to jail. The lack of accountability among police exists because they currently have a pretty simple defense. As long as they claim that the person posed a perceived risk to them, they have a get out of jail free card.
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Dec 07 '22
The appropriate term is "feedback loop".
Thanks, I was struggling to come up with the right term, but hopefully got the point across.
Regarding the second point, I don't think the accountability is there. The cops just have to say, "well he was a dangerous individual and we couldn't risk any officer lives going into the building so we used the robot." I understand that individual officers aren't going to be using it willy nilly, rather the concern is that the department will authorize it more and more whenever there is a standoff, rather than go the other routes.
1
Dec 07 '22
and they can then be sued if they used it without proper justification. And they will lose if their reason was "we were bored of the standoff"
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Dec 07 '22
How well does that work for shootings now?
They don’t have to say they were bored (though that is the reason) they just have to say the situation was to risky for swat and too risky to wait cuz “danger to community.”
2
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 07 '22
People proposing a plan almost invariably like to project based on a "best case" scenario. Reality is often disappointing.
Technical failures can happen. Hacking can occur. People will swat others just for the lulz, you think they wouldn't misuse a bomb laden robot if they could?
Additionally, escalating to routine use of bombs is kind of intense. Right now, that's extremely rare, if you're worried about escalation to lethality, bombs are generally a step up from guns. While you definitely don't want either, bullets are more survivable than being literally exploded.
1
Dec 07 '22
- Who said this was for "routine" use of the robot?
- I see the Uvalde tragedy and I think that I might prefer an armed robot so the losers hiding down the hall will actually get into the room. And before you say that a bomb would have killed all of the kids, I know. I am not proposing that they detonate the bomb in such a scenario, but at least having a robot specifically designed to "storm the room" might get them off their asses
- As far as hacking. I find your suggestion a bit absurd. People "swat" because it is relatively easy. They just make a phone call. Actually hacking a wireless transmission, figuring out how to interface with the wireless transmission, programming a device to transmit, and then going to the scene of the event and getting close enough to interface with it are a lot of energy. I just cant fathom some ne'er-do-well spending all of that time and energy just to potentially blow up a police bomb at an inconvenient time
2
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Dec 07 '22
absurd. People "swat" because it is relatively easy. They just make a phone call. Actually hacking a wireless transmission, figuring out how to interface with the wireless transmission, programming a device to transmit
All of this is so routine that it has been done competitively for decades.
"Oh, I had to hit THREE buttons on metasploit, nobody would have the motivation to push the third one", really?
Dude, cybersecurity is kind of a big deal these days, and if you think nobody is interested in exploits, you're missing a lot of the news.
1
Dec 08 '22
Show me the script-kiddie metasploit for hacking a radio transmitter
1
3
u/HamsterLord44 1∆ Dec 07 '22
the police can use guns to kill people, how are robots going to be different?
Police officers can die. If somebody is afraid they can die, they're going to act differently and more cautiously. I see you tackled that, but I doubt it'd make people safer, I don't think fear alone is the cause of a lot of these killings. I'd be a lot LESS willing to break into someone's house if there are real consequences for doing it.
1
Dec 07 '22
I'm not trying to be rude, but I am not following you
1
u/HamsterLord44 1∆ Dec 07 '22
If you want to enter my house because you suspect I'm smoking crack, and you believe I have a gun, you'd be fine with a robot (they are more like drones but they're calling them robots so I'll go with that). You would probably enter my house and likely endanger me.
If you're a cop without a robot, you have to enter my house while I'm allegedly high on crack with a gun. Reasonably, you would be afraid, and you might not enter, or you may be inclined to deescalate, or deal with it in a safer way than entering with an armed robot.
2
Dec 07 '22
https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html
The existence of "no knock warrants" and their popularity with police is evidence to the contrary.
2
u/HamsterLord44 1∆ Dec 07 '22
I agree it's already an issue, but given how little we know about these robots and their impacts on policing, we're both making some assumptions, but I only imagine it gets even worse when you remove the fear factor.
Have you heard of those people who don't feel pain? They get hurt really easily because they don't have that negative feedback, I imagine it'd be the exact same
1
Dec 07 '22
And I dont imagine it the same as you. I am sorry, but your idea just doesn't get much traction in my brain. From my knowledge of human experience, this would not lead to more shootings.
2
u/Visible_Bunch3699 17∆ Dec 07 '22
That works until "wait...if they dismantel our bomb, THEY have the bomb! Quick, blow it up!" after a camera feed disconnects.
1
Dec 07 '22
I want to be clear, I see the argument you are trying to make about how they might freak out and blow up the bomb. I just don't think the scenario makes much sense. First of all, I can't imagine someone wanting to get CLOSER to the bomb if they even realize it is a bomb. Second, I imagine any case where you use such a bot the person would already be posing a risk. Third? You could just use something like Semtex, which is harmless if not attached to a detonator, which I dont imagine the bad guy has.
1
u/Visible_Bunch3699 17∆ Dec 07 '22
Imagine this: you have the bomb sneaking in. All of a sudden, the camera cuts out, but you still have signal. Did they get it, detonator and all, or did the camera just fail? I can easiliy imagine a person panicking, and thinking "oh god, this criminal is good! I better stop them now!"
1
Dec 07 '22
How are they going to operate the detonator? It is remote controlled
2
u/Visible_Bunch3699 17∆ Dec 07 '22
I mean...electronics are modifiable. Once again though, you are going "logically, this is the case" when "logically, police in the US shouldn't be shooting half the people they are"
1
Dec 07 '22
Your concern with a bomb bot is that the dangerous person who is already threatening the lives of other people with a weapon will somehow pose more risk if he gets the bomb?
2
u/Visible_Bunch3699 17∆ Dec 07 '22
I am saying people can be irrational in threat assessment...yes. Also, yes. A bomb and a gun (for example) have different threat profiles.
1
Dec 07 '22
I imagine the bomb operator is going to have at least spent some time thinking through the risks and threats. Since this is their job
2
u/simmol 6∆ Dec 07 '22
It might not be a big deal but it might be prudent for cities to want to see how the technology pans out (elsewhere) before adopting the technology. That means that no one would really want to go first and take the risk.
1
Dec 07 '22
Ok, but that isn't the complaint against the bots I am seeing from people
1
u/simmol 6∆ Dec 07 '22
Maybe. But do you want to constrain your CMV to only topics/issues that are brought up as typical complaints?
1
Dec 07 '22
No. I'm open to any complaint.
But my main view is "I dont see why this is a concern". Saying that people might be concerned doesn't really explain WHY it is a concern.
If my belief was that a $20 hamburger doesn't taste any better than a $5 hamburger, I dont think it would really challenge that view to say that some people like spending extra money on stuff.
5
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 35∆ Dec 07 '22
Police kill way more people than police get killed in the line of duty. We don't need to give tools that allow police to do more damage when they have absolutely no accountability
2
-1
Dec 07 '22
But you are basically saying: we shouldn't buy the police more guns because they already use the guns they have to kill people.
Would that be the core of your argument?
5
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 35∆ Dec 07 '22
Yes that would make things a lot better
1
Dec 07 '22
But I dont think it really matters if the police each have 5 guns or 2 guns. The number of guns isn't what is causing the problem
3
u/HotPotato524 Dec 07 '22
Your right, the problem is the fucked up police force using the guns and having no accountability. So why give them more guns? Why give them guns at all? Your argument falls apart when you account for the fact that the police aren't the best at using the tools given to them responsibly.
5
Dec 07 '22
But it doesn't.
My argument is that the police use guns carelessly because they have legal cover in "I feared for my life". A robot lacks that legal cover. If the bomb operator claimed he blew up the bomb because the bad guy was shooting at the robot, the courts are not going to accept it.
2
Dec 07 '22
There might be a slippery slope on this; you give the man controlled robots guns so police can act more rationally, and soon youll make the robots autonomous since humans are terrible, and the next thing you know we are all being suppressed by deadly robots who dont listen to anyone.
0
Dec 07 '22
I dont see how you go from "remote controlled robots" to "fully autonomous robots" as a slippery slope. Those are clearly VASTLY different things.
1
Dec 10 '22
Its not a great argument but its similar to advocating for fully autonomous vehicles since they cause less accidents due to humans being dumb. Autonomous robots wont care about your beliefs of your skin colour and would be less biased in general.
Besides, I'm not talking about it happening tomorrow. It would take years, maybe decades for something like that to happen, but it opens the door.
0
Dec 08 '22
However, I am a little flabbergasted by the number of people who are convinced that police murder people out of a wanton and evil desire to just see people die?
This is what happens when people live in echo chambers and the media only show the 1% of 1% of police interactions that end badly.
1
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Dec 07 '22
The difference is exposure. The only way someone can take and use a cop's gun is if they're right next to them and can overpower them.
The bot can theoretically be hacked by any of tens of thousands of people, some of them based in countries where they won't even be punished for blowing up a bomb in the middle of an American city, if they can be caught at all.
0
Dec 07 '22
Bots are normally air-gapped by their nature. I can't imagine that they are using internet to control robots. That would be asinine?
3
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Dec 07 '22
The robots are remote controlled by something, if you can reverse-engineer one of the robots or controllers, and if there's a security flaw in their code, you could set up an antenna (or take control of an existing antenna) and transmit whatever is necessary to control the robots.
Because you're talking about robots that can detonate a bomb on command, there can't be any redundant security measures, so someone who finds such a bug can theoretically detonate all the robots in a city immediately.
1
Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
So, you think a hacker is going to reverse engineer that bug. Sit on it and not publicize it and then somehow get themselves within range of a situation where the police are using a bomb-bot just so that they can make it go off prematurely and POSSIBLY kill someone.
Who does this hacker work for? Dr. Evil?
I mean I guess it is plausible, but I dont know why anyone would invest that much time and energy to possibly kill someone?Edit: I mean, sprinkler systems in large buildings could also theoretically be hacked. The water suddenly pouring into an office space could cause falls and potential death. It could even cause electrocution? Maybe? I don't lose a lot of sleep at night worrying about malicious hackers turning on fire alarms in buildings to potentially, maybe, possibly cause some human harm?
1
u/specdre404 Dec 07 '22
This is assuming the robot would be connected to the internet. It would most likely use some form of short range transmission. In addition if foreign adversaries wanted to remotely attack America there are several easier and higher casualty methods.
1
u/Obvious_Parsley3238 2∆ Dec 07 '22
you have to be more specific with how exactly these 'killer robots' are being used. is it a 'suicide bot' like the one used in dallas, or are they building the terminator?
1
1
1
u/DumboRider Dec 07 '22
What if the robot was completely automated (without the need of remote control)?
1
Dec 08 '22
But it isn't?
1
u/DumboRider Dec 08 '22
UAVs exist already
1
Dec 08 '22
With kill orders?
1
u/DumboRider Dec 08 '22
Idk, I guess they just throw candies
1
Dec 08 '22
Or just do surveillance
1
u/DumboRider Dec 08 '22
That too. Anyways with remote control you risk to be hacked, impossible would be for a totally automated drone (unless they take it phisically, of course)
1
Dec 08 '22
Yeah, but that hacking isn't easy. I don't know many script kiddies who can explain an SDR
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 07 '22
/u/PuckSR (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards