The city of San Francisco has rescinded a controversial policy on the use of “lethal robots” after outrage and protests from citizens and human rights groups. However, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the new ban is not permanent and the matter has been “returned to the committee for further discussion.”

In late November, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) offered to give their robots a license to kill in dangerous situations. The city’s Board of Supervisors initially approved a proposed policy that would have allowed cops to use remote-controlled robots “as an option for deadly force when the risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other available use of force,” but later reversed its decision.

An SFPD spokesman said the department’s robots (most of which were designed to defuse bombs in war zones) can be equipped with explosives to “disorient an aggressive, armed or dangerous suspect in extreme circumstances, with the goal of saving or preventing further loss of innocent lives.”

Robots have already been used in this way in the US before – in 2016 in Dallas, police used a robot to detonate a criminal who shot 5 law enforcement officers at a rally.

Course

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Activists criticized the policy, with one letter signed by 44 civil society organizations saying such a permit would “needlessly put lives at risk” and that the public would “be uncomfortable with the use of armed robots in any situation.”

“There is no reason to believe that explosives operations can be an exception to the excessive use of lethal force by the police. The use of bomb disposal robots is a prime example of this pattern of police escalation and militarization that worries many across the city,” the letter said.

Such arguments seem to have convinced the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. One of the aldermen who originally voted for the policy, Gordon Marr, said in a Twitter thread that he has since become “increasingly uncomfortable with his vote and the precedent it sets for other cities.”

“I don’t think that making violence more remote and less human is a step forward. I don’t think killer robots are going to make us safer, prevent or solve crimes,” Mar said.

I’m grateful to all who’ve expressed concerns with our vote authorizing SFPD to use robots to kill suspects in extreme circumstances. Despite my own deep feelings about the policy, I voted for it after additional guardrails were added.

I regret it. I will vote no tomorrow. 1/4

— Gordon Mar 馬兆明 (@D4GordonMar) December 5, 2022

Another representative, Hillary Ronen, who previously voted against the policy, also celebrated the decision on Twitter.

“We just stopped using killer robots in San Francisco. Common sense prevailed,” Ronen tweeted.

You mean using ring robots robots in SF. Complete reversal from last week. Common sense prevailed.

— Hillary Ronen (@HillaryRonen) December 6, 2022

Currently, the San Francisco Police has only 17 robots, of which only 12 are in working order. They can be tentatively divided into two categories:

• large and medium-sized tracked robots used for remote exploration or detonation of explosives (eg Remotec F6A and Qinetiq Talon);
• smaller robots designed for reconnaissance and surveillance (such as iRobot FirstLook and Recon Robotics Throwbot).

All of them are primarily human-driven and have limited autonomous functionality.

Oakland police also initially approved the use of robots to remotely kill suspects, but later reversed their decision without explanation.

A group of robot manufacturers, including Boston Dynamics, signed a pledge not to use their robots as weapons earlier this year. The companies cite “public concern” and stress that they will try to prevent their customers from later weaponizing any products sold to them.

Source: The Verge