A policy proposal heading for Board of Supervisors approval next week would explicitly authorize San Francisco police to kill suspects using robots.
The new policy, which defines how the SFPD is allowed to use its military-style weapons, was put together by the police department. Over the past several weeks, it has been scrutinized by supervisors Aaron Peskin, Rafael Mandelman and Connie Chan, who together comprise the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee.
The draft policy faces criticism from advocates for its language on robot force, as well as for excluding hundreds of assault rifles from its inventory of military-style weapons and for not including personnel costs in the price of its weapons.
Peskin, chair of the committee, initially attempted to limit the SFPD’s authority over the department’s robots by inserting the sentence, “Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person.”
The following week, the police struck outhis suggestion with a thick red line.
It was replaced by language that codifies the department’s authority to use lethal force via robots: “Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to SFPD.”
This could mark a legal Rubicon for the city: Robot use-of-force has never before been approved, nor has it ever been prohibited, in San Francisco. A version of this draft policy was unanimously accepted by the rules committee last week and will come before the full board on Nov. 29.
“The original policy they submitted was actually silent on whether robots could deploy lethal force,” said Peskin. He added that he decided to approve the SFPD’s caveated guidelines because the department had made the case that “there could be scenarios where deployment of lethal force was the only option.”
Advocates and lawyers who oppose the militarization of the police are less convinced.
“We are living in a dystopian future, where we debate whether the police may use robots to execute citizens without a trial, jury, or judge,” said Tifanei Moyer, senior staff attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Moyer leads the organization’s work on police misconduct and militarization.
“This is not normal,” she wrote over email. “No legal professional or ordinary resident should carry on as if it is normal.”
Hopefully they are programmed to terminate lisps.
I’m good with it with that condition of risk of loss of life… but not if its used to apprehend a suspect.
As soon as I saw the thread title I ran in here to post an ED-209 gif.
I hate you and your assface.
GOOD. now MAGAtards and other deplorables can’t WHINE and MOAN about PERSECUTION and RACISM
He beat me, too. What a faggot.
Want to trade consolation bro-jobs?
And now they can blame “malfunctions” for systemic racism
Countdown to “robots are racist” riots…
Lol wtf… try some facial recognition software on black people and see what happens.
China town better stay they ass inside
It does. Until it doesn’t. You wanna talk slippery slopes…
Remember they just had a woman that tried to report her being assaulted to a campus security bot and it told her to back away and rolled away whistling a tune. Now what happens in the reverse where the bot goes crazy and downs 7-8 bystanders for no reason? Or hell what about when it gets hacked? People are so fuct. Elon warned us to slow down on AI and then proceeded to introduce nuerolink to literally put AI in our brains. And by the end of it, they “won’t have to put you asleep to do it”.
Scary scary world these days.
Those are legitimate concerns. Are these boys autonamois or remotely controlled ?
I do agree with you… but are they even talking about AI at this point? Or are we talking about robots controlled by a human? i think that’s what we are talking about at this point.
There is 0 chance they’re not remote right now… but no idea if this would apply in the future when they are autonomous.