The San Francisco Supervisors Court just approved the latest rule regarding the use of robots by local police. The robots in question number around a dozen and have been engaged by local security for some time for search operations and to defuse dangerous explosives. Until now, the concept applied to the development of robots has been to use the machine to operate in place of humans in situations that could put the operator in danger, and the new “killer robots” will have a license to kill, thus shaping a new future.
Killer robots: armed androids
From now on, these androids can also be armed to resolve particularly risky situations. The decision taken across the Atlantic has already aroused the astonishment and concern of our fellow Americans. Some members of the police themselves, in fact, as well as civil rights associations quickly expressed their doubts and apprehensions.
The provision was approved by eight votes in favor and three against, after in September, still in San Francisco, the control of private video surveillance circuits in real time was carried out by machines. Under the new order, law enforcement will be able to request up to 24 hours of video access. This system could provide security improvements by deciding whether or not to reveal agents in the field during a particularly risky event, and when.
Killer robots: an invention that is not new
The news is making headlines today, but the idea has already been iterated in the past. On July 7, 2016, an intern was fired for using a remote-controlled robot to stop a dangerous shooting. That day, in fact, war veteran Micah Xavier Johnson killed five police officers in Boston and the police put an end to his life with a remote-controlled explosion by a machine.
Today the question arises whether this use of machines could be the key to police action in the not-so-distant future. It is obvious that the decision to use these means will not be taken lightly and that robots will only be used if there is no other means. An amendment enshrined this clarification, as well as the requirement that only officers of the highest rank be able to use it.
Can we then feel comfortable? To date, there are many doubts, but according to supervisor Rafael Mandelman, to defeat crime it is necessary to exploit all the possibilities offered by new technologies.
A new dystopian program in preparation
The new robots that the American police will be able to use are at the cutting edge of technology and certainly mark a breakthrough. Indeed, according to the San Fancisco Chronicles, “some robots currently in the department's arsenal, like the Remotec F5A, can also climb ladders, lift more than 85 pounds, negotiate sidewalks, probe dangerous situations and right themselves from ‘themselves when knocked down'.
The automatons in question have proven themselves and are used to this day to assist humans in various valuable tasks such as explosives search operations, patrols and logistical support.
However, the machines have not yet been made capable of killing, and the upgrade that will allow them to perform remote detonations will only be implemented when necessary.
Robots will be the guardians of tomorrow
Regulating autonomous detonation machines is the tip of the iceberg of a technology modernization program that the San Francisco Police Department has been implementing for some time. The mindset with which this decision was approached is well expressed by Rafael Mandelman, who said: “We have seen terrorism, school shootings and other things like that, and in the 21st century, I think it's time to have the right technology, advanced technology, to deal with threats like this.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed also gave her thoughts on the latest regulations put in place:
“In my opinion, this is a sensible policy that seeks to balance the need to provide our police officers with another tool to address significant daily public safety challenges, with the need to hold police officers accountable. people who break the law.”
Of course, the debate does not end there and, to this day, many are skeptical of these resolutions. Firstly, citizens' privacy may be restricted in the future and technology sometimes has drawbacks if it cannot be “controlled”. The dilemma remains the same as that which gripped Mary Shelly in her Frankenstein, it remains only to know whether to move forward with future improvements or whether it is better to think more about the possible consequences.