Police Aim to Enable 'Killing of Suspects Using Robots'

In recent years, the introduction of

robots by the police has been controversial, and the non-profit organization Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned that `` police should not have armed drones or armed robots ''. Meanwhile, it was reported that a draft of a new policy submitted by the San Francisco Police Department to the San Francisco City Council's Supervising Committee includes the wording that permits the ``killing of suspects using robots''. I was.

SFPD authorized to kill suspects using robots in draft policy - Mission Local

San Francisco police consider letting robots use 'deadly force' - The Verge

San Francisco votes on lethal force for police robots • The Register

In California, due to the state law `` AB481 '' passed in 2021, it is obliged to report annually on the inventory, necessary cost, method of use, and deployment status of the previous year for military weapons owned by the police. In connection with this, the San Francisco Police Department has put together a new policy on the use of military weapons, which has been scrutinized over the past several weeks.

Initially, police policies did not include language on the use of robots. Therefore, Mr. Aaron Peskin, chairman of the management committee and member of the regulatory committee who was involved in formulating the policy, added the phrase, ``Robots must not use force against any human being.'' , tried to limit the use of robots by the San Francisco Police Department.

However, when looking at the (PDF file) archive of the draft policy, the wording proposed by Mr. Peskin was canceled by the police, and instead, ``Robots are in danger of losing the lives of ordinary citizens and police officers, and are used by the San Francisco Police Department. It is used as an alternative to the use of lethal force only when it outweighs other possible alternatives to the use of force.”

The Regulatory Board has approved a draft policy revised by the San Francisco Police Department and is expected to be submitted to the Administrative Board beginning November 29, 2022. ``The original policy submitted by the San Francisco Police Department was silent about whether the robot could deploy lethal force,'' Peskin said. The San Francisco Police Department said it approved the draft policy because it claimed that ``there are scenarios in which the use of lethal force is the only option.''

The San Francisco City Police owns 17 remote-controlled robots at the time of writing the article, 12 of which are in a working state. Robots are mainly designed for applications such as processing explosives and dangerous materials, but one of them, the 'Remotec F5A' robot, killed a shooter who shot five police officers in 2016. It's the same model that was used to blow it up.

Dallas police kill shooter with robot, 'I wanted to kill white people' 3 photos International News: AFPBB News

In October, it was reported that police in Oakland, California, were planning to equip Northrop Grumman's Andros Mark 5A-1 bomb disposal robot with a shotgun. In response to criticism, Auckland police have removed the language that allows robots to kill humans from their policy, but they have not given up on future authorization.

Claiming that ``the police are trying to equip robots with weapons that have lethal capabilities''-GIGAZINE

by Shai Barzilay

Eve Laokwansathitaya of the San Francisco Police Department told foreign media The Verge that the San Francisco Police Department was originally allowed to use deadly force when the lives of civilians and police officers were at risk. . It argues that situations in which robots use lethal weapons are extremely rare and exceptional, and that there are no specific plans.

Meanwhile, Tifanei Moyer, senior attorney at the San Francisco Bay Area Civil Rights Lawyers Board, said, 'We have a dystopian future where police use robots to debate whether citizens can be executed without trial or trial. 'This is not normal. No one in the legal profession or the general public should think that this is normal.'

in Note, Posted by log1h_ik