(see bottom for Poll question elaborations before voting)

----

I was going to post this in the 'Police brutality, Police Reform' thread but as I wanted to see the results of the poll and I think it would get 'lost in the noise' of that thread I opted to create this thread.


I'm genuinely curious about how people view this as a potential vehicle of police reform/enabling?




Tech like this will obviously have some positive and negative connotations and fall out. CCTV camera, Mobile Robots with cameras and an active remote "Police Officer' who can speak thru it and address issues, and flying drones with camera's and other tech will continue to be utilized in increasing fashion by police.

Is that good or bad?

Potential positive uses:

- Utilizing the Robot to do reconnaissance first in areas that the police officer might be nervous and thus have his finger on the trigger, often leading to accidental shootings.

- sending the robot into volatile domestic violence situations first and using the Microphone to try and talk to the people before sending bodies into the room

- sending the robot into an active crime scene first and using the microphone to let the criminals know they have been captured on video in an attempt to de-escalate before engagement

- using a version of this robot in the way ankle monitors are used to track and monitor criminals under forms of House arrest or parole where they are allowed some limited movements

Negatives:

- erosion of privacy. Tech like this and CCTV can be everywhere thus creating a real police State, as citizens are ever surveilled, crime or no crime. (Something i think is inevitable regardless)

- dehumanizing. Having instructions barked at you thru a Robot before an officer attends could have a dehumanizing impact on the person






Poll question elaborations:

1 - my biggest concern is the dehumanizing effect this might have. I think Police/Citizen face to face engagement is a good and needed thing

2 - I think the biggest benefit is reducing Police/Citizen engagement, which in most cases, where this robot would be used, would be in challenging situations were escalation tends to be a main problem.

3 - this is a further erosion of privacies, as other tech such as CCTV have been and I am against that on principle, even if the result were to be less tragic Police/Citizen interactions

4 - Hell yes, bring on a Cyberpunk future. Let's get to the full RoboCop ASAP. I am down with that.

5 - other? (explain)

Imagine thinking that these won't be destroyed and/or stripped for parts immediately.

YMMV, but around here we can't even have those scooter companies stick around for more than a couple weeks because of what happens to their merchandise.

Just as there are laws protecting police dogs you could make laws protecting these.

It won't be 100% but knowing the Tech has camera's and motion detection, which ensures you will be filmed most times, before reaching the device, would give a large degree of protection from all but the most preplanned attacks.

Are you going to send more robots in to protect the robots? Or do actual police officers start showing up eventually and knocking some heads?

At that point, now that you're out a few hundred thousand dollars in technology, perhaps just let the actual cops do the patrolling. You know, sort of like it is now.

I think you are looking at this a little too binary.

You know they use robots to vet an area where there is a bomb threat before sending in the police right? I am guessing you understand why that is done.


This is an extension of that. Where time allows, you send in the robot first with a camera so you can assess the threat. Keeps nervous cops from walking room to room with finger on the trigger ready to fire at any flinch if they get a look at the place prior.

All that said, i do not see the utility in this type of robot when something like this drone with a camera and speaker/microphone, can do almost everything that type of robot can until they get robots who can open doors.

Even if the answer is not robot dogs (as much as I’d like it to be), think better can be done than how it is now

An increase in tech could allow for an overall increase in safety (for everyone) and create more scarcity for the need of cops I.e making it a competitive field

I’m sure the way I’m thinking about this is shallow and idealistic so I’m interested in hearing what others have to say

I think those are very fair questions Doorbread.

And i think come like chez might be able to give us some insights as to how mass CCTV introductions impacted crimes rates in the England.

In a way i see this as CCTV with legs or propellers. Call it CCTV plus as the 'robot' would likely have an active operator (a trained cop) who can also speak thru the unit to aggressors or victims.

So you have to think about this many ways. What if these are just added to the regular cop deployment (thus not replacing) to extend range and reach? What if these replace a significant number of street officers such that you teams of officers who respond to need instead of current 'searching' (patrolling) for where they might be needed.

The dehumanizing aspect needs to be considered too. But it is not a straight forward negative. So many cops are bad at the face to face and tend to escalate problems that dehumanizing and making things more remote and robotic might actually be a calming influence leading to better results overall.

It's interesting, because I like the idea of less cops, so I voted that way.

However, I see some potential issues.

If we program the robot dogs, police, drones, whatever to act a certain way....then they are going to..no exception. So, if the robot booms out put hands up, and get out of the car....and you don't, the robots are going to do what they are programmed to do. There won't be any nuance.

Surveillance causes privacy concerns.

We're already at the level where current levels of surveillance is similar to if in the 50s, the government and companies opened all your mail, analysed all your purchases, kept tabs on all your relationship, monitored all your movement and tried to predict your future behaviours.

We need far less of that, not more.

As for robots, there is a whole host of categories there and it won't make much sense to throw them all under the same category.

1.) If the contention is that all policemen are somehow too violent (which I do not agree with), then obviously remote controlled robots that perform tasks like apprehensions and stops won't be be any better. They'll engage in the behaviours of their controllers' attitudes.
b) For tech that makes its own decision, these are "algorithmic black boxes", where oversight is almost impossible. This is not tenable in law enforcement. They are also subject to the biases and prejudices inherent in the data, collection of data and writing of algorithms. That is not science fiction, we already know this from existing experiences where we use algorithms to make decisions.
c) As for robots that are more a natural extension of capabilities (robot dogs, bomb disposal, small surveillance drones for use on-site), that is probably an inevitability. They might not escape the considerations above, but at least we have a model of what they should be able to do and not do.

Regarding your first point. Once technology advances to a point where something like apprehension by tech is possible, police can no longer say they felt they were in a position where they felt they were in danger so they reacted. There could be multiple people at the helm going through a collaborative protocol before forced could be applied

Also think scarcity would inherently improve the police culture in a major way in tandem with things like qualified immunity becoming less of a thing, performance as a cop will actually matter and as a result the job generates more value

Grunch

How about make all police officers wear body cams and full audio and so that neither can ever be shut off?

I'm getting tired of hearing about malfunctions and inadvertently doing this or that. Bullshit. Cops know exactly what they're doing and weren't born yesterday. Make them think twice about the disgraceful things they've said and done off camera. Sunlight is the best disinfectant

We don't need ****ing police robot dogs. We need less of a need for police in general. The stroke of a pen can legalize weed and reduce the prison population immediately. Then we can focus on drug/alcohol abuse and the traffic accidents that come with it with rehab instead of jail/hardening/recidivism

I think we are still a long way from autonomous AI robots. This is more about user interface and controlled robots, with a trained officer at the helm.

I think the surveillance culture is only going to extend further. London is a city where almost every square foot if under CCTV and people accept it.

Our cell phones now map everywhere we go and at what times.

I agree there are many instances where robots would not preferable to the human touch. But I think in all forms of reconnaissance, where typically you are sending cops in to suspected dangerous situations with their fingers on the trigger a robot is preferable.

Let them clear the field first or identify the threats and then send the cops in.

Political predictions are tough, but the signals I see right now point to a higher awareness of these issues in the Euro-zone, and we might see a scaling back of these things in the long run. The US seems likely to allow it to run rampant, there is simply too much money in it.

It might be too little too late, the internet and how we communicate has effectively rendered privacy left in the public sphere non-existent.

I'm not so sure. If we use drones in warfare as an example (both in the surveillance phase and the decision phase), I don't really know if it has made decisions to not strike less likely.

Sure, on one hand you might say that the decision to strike to protect yourself is less relevant, but on the other hand the bar for when to engage with force might also have been reduced.

But I don't know how comparable these scenarios are, which I guess is part of the problem. We're in uncharted territory.

It will be fine.

Soon the matrix will be finished and we'll all enjoy a good steak and cuban cigar...at least as far as we know.

I used to do some work in video surveillance. The UK is an interesting case, they adopted it way earlier than the rest of the world, because of IRA terrorism.

There was one job that came up in Singapore. They wanted a special van outfitted with cameras that they could use if there was a demonstration / riot / crowd / whatever. They wanted to just be able to take pictures of all the faces involved but not do anything right then..... It sounded creepy AF and the sales told them he wasn't interested.

I foresee a future not that far off where police will have docked and charging flying drones sitting on Traffic lights or other such strategic charging areas all around the city, as first responders to a litany of incidents.

Reports of 'shot fired', 'a traffic accident', 'other' and an assigned, at desk operator, launches the drone to the area immediately to gather video surveillance of the area that can then be relayed to the racing first responders who are on route to the area.

I am quite comfortable with that evolution.

I think one of the biggest inducers of Police/Citizen conflict is the adrenaline the Police bring to the scene as they confront the unknown. The more they know, i think would translate into less adrenaline and less of that type of conflict.

With more hands on deck, officer safety being a nonissue and qualified immunity as something that will decrease over time accountability would increase. There is way less room for excuses in poor judgment. I would think all of these things lead to a decrease in violence

What is your thought process behind your second point

Military uses robots (drones) now to often do reconnainse before sending in foot soldiers when prior that would be bodies and 'eyes on'.

Do you think that is a mistake? Do you think they should draw that back and go back to sending in foot soldiers to dangerous unknown places where intel could be gathered prior.

No one is saying robots and robots only but certainly there must be a case for them.

Do you at least agree with their current use in bomb investigation?

Seems absolutely inevitable. Of course abuse of such a system could have privacy ramifications, but I see no reason those couldn't be worked out.

Agreed. More information makes for better decision-making, which would benefit everyone.

Nothing is going to stop this from happening. From goverment, private firms and the public. There's just far too much upside to stop it.

The only real poltical decision is how/whether to influence the rules on the use of data etc. or just leave it to others to write the rules.

Totally in favor of any technology that can be put in between police and the criminals

These dogs are for very specific cases, but what's needed is the batman type gadgets that can neutralize a person without police doing it manually. The tasers are a good start, but seems limited in effectiveness. Where's the spiderman webbing that could be thrown over a perp trying to just run away? Or maybe some type of foam that hardens around the criminal's body to incapacitate him. I saw something once where they were using sound waves for crowd control - looked very promising.

Just need stuff in between engaging a perp in hand to hand combat and shooting him.

I am much less comfortable with allowing remote or autonomous tech weaponry that can engage and disable a person, even non lethally.

I would assume if it goes that way the drone or robot would have to have a trained police officer as its operator and eyes and not just any operator, and if we are talking AI making that call I think we are a few lifetimes away from my comfort on that.

I might change that, if it is an officer on scene and lets use the example he is in shoot out and barricaded on one side or the room while the shooter is on the other. They are both relatively pinned down.

If the officer can call for backup and a drone with a taser is available and can make the approach and maybe take the shot, I can see benefit to that. Risking tech instead of a life. But I would want the officer on scene, eyes on target and using the drone as an extension of himself.

imo the negatives far outweigh the positives. It's not even close.

This was roughly what I was going to type next, but TD did a better job of explaining it than I would have.