On the topic of Killer Robots
The blatantly liberal city of San Francisco last week became the improbable supporter of remotely controlled police robots that can be used in certain circumstances.
Tuesday’s 8-3 vote by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors authorized police to use explosive-equipped robots in life-threatening situations where no other option was available. The approval comes amid growing criticism of police forces using militarized tools and force as part of a years-long criminal justice crisis, which has led to increased monitoring of police departments nationwide.
A new California legislation mandating police to inventory military-grade weapons like flashbang grenades, assault rifles, and armored vehicles, as well as obtain public consent before using them, is what sparked the vote.
Only San Francisco and Oakland police departments in California have so far made public discussions about using robots in this process. Over the past ten years, police departments around the nation have deployed robots to interact with barricaded individuals, access potentially dangerous areas, and, in a few rare instances, use lethal force.
When Dallas police deployed a robot to detonate explosives during a standoff with a sniper who had killed five police officers and injured nine more, they made history by killing the first suspect with a robot.
The recent vote in San Francisco reignited a heated discussion over the morality of employing robots to murder suspects and the opportunities such regulations would create. According to experts, despite technological advancements, the usage of these robots is still very uncommon.
Even if robotics businesses showcase deadlier solutions at tradeshows, according to Arizona State University professor Michael White, that doesn’t imply police departments will purchase them. White claimed that companies created specialized claymores to destroy barricades and rushed to install facial recognition software in body-worn cameras but that departments rejected them.
Communities didn’t support that amount of surveillance, thus the reason. It’s difficult to predict what will happen, but weaponized robots may very well be the subsequent development that departments object to since communities have voiced their opposition, according to White.
Regardless of robots, The author of the California legislation, David Chiu of San Francisco, claimed that the public deserves more transparency from police enforcement and a role in the deployment of militarized tools.Last but not least is the discussion of cybersecurity as it applies to “killer robots.” It’s one thing for the police to use them, but what if they fall into the hands of bad actors by way of a cybersecurity vulnerability? Indeed, many questions remain unanswered, which is why communities must stay aware and vigilant concerning wirelessly controlled militarized weapons for law enforcement.
