I always try and be nice to Alexa so the robots might go easy on me come the revolution.Until the robots get wise and also arm themselves with crowbars.
Then we need to worry.
Why would a [presumably] bluetooth speaker need all that? Normally all you need to do is pair it with the device you connect to the internet with.My brother bought me some kind of 'smart speaker' thingumabob as a chrimbo pressie a couple of years ago.
I unboxed it, read the instructions about allowing it to have access to my google stuff, phone numbers, email addresses, etc etc etc,..........then reboxed it and it has been sitting in the back of a cupboard ever since.
Blimey I'm behind the times. So what else could a smart speaker do apart from produce sound, that just a bluetooth wouldn't?Beats me pal.
That was what I thought but these 'smart' things are a step up from just a bluetooth speaker. (It wouldn't have worked unless I set up an amazon prime account as well. And then also download an app. And allow access to all my info.)
I mean, my phone will link with the audio system in my car via bluetooth and play the music, but it doesn't automatically actively listen to me and order me a burger to be delivered when I'm at the next set of traffic lights if I happen to mention that I'm hungry.
Probably a poor example but you know what I mean.
Crikey - yes you are. You need to get with the modern stuff, grandad! lol.Blimey I'm behind the times. So what else could a smart speaker do apart from produce sound, that just a bluetooth wouldn't?
Hmmm….. think I’ll just stick with bluetooth.Crikey - yes you are. You need to get with the modern stuff, grandad! lol.
I'm lead to believe that you can pretty much treat the thing like some sort of disembodied secretary.
You can call out to it to make a phone call, set you an alarm, play you music, order your take-away, book your flight tickets, link it to your TV so it shows the stuff you ask it to....all sorts of stuff, but you do need to surrender all your info to its database and be prepared for it to know your every movement.
An army of those would be terrifying in battle!
San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
The San Francisco Police Department submitted a proposal that would give robots the ability to use deadly force in dangerous situations.
The San Francisco Police Department is proposing a new policy that would give robots the license to kill, as reported earlier by Mission Local (via Engadget). The draft policy, which outlines how the SFPD can use military-style weapons, states robots can be “used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option.”
As reported by Mission Local, members of the city’s Board of Supervisors Rules Committee have been reviewing the new equipment policy for several weeks. The original version of the draft didn’t include any language surrounding robots’ use of deadly force until Aaron Peskin, the Dean of the city’s Board of Supervisors, initially added that “robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person.”
However, the SFPD returned the draft with a red line crossing out Peskin’s addition, replacing it with the line that gives robots the authority to kill suspects. According to Mission Local, Peskin eventually decided to accept the change because “there could be scenarios where deployment of lethal force was the only option.” San Francisco’s rules committee unanimously approved a version of the draft last week, which will face the Board of Supervisors on November 29th.
As outlined in the equipment policy, the SFPD currently has 17 remotely piloted robots, but only 12 are functioning. In addition to granting robots the ability to use deadly force, the proposal also authorizes them for use in “training and simulations, criminal apprehensions, critical incidents, exigent circumstances, executing a warrant or during suspicious device assessments.”
While most of the robots listed in the SFPD’s inventory are primarily used for defusing bombs or dealing with hazardous materials, newer Remotec models have an optional weapons system, and the department’s existing F5A has a tool called the PAN disruptor that can load 12-gauge shotgun shells. It’s typically used to detonate bombs from a distance. The department’s QinetiQ Talon can also be modified to hold various weapons — a weaponized version of the robot is currently used by the US Army and can equip grenade launchers, machine guns, or even a .50-caliber anti-materiel rifle.
“SFPD has always had the ability to use lethal force when the risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available,” says SFPD Officer Eve Laokwansathitaya, in a statement to The Verge. “SFPD does not have any sort of specific plan in place as the unusually dangerous or spontaneous operations where SFPD’s need to deliver deadly force via robot would be a rare and exceptional circumstance.”
The Dallas Police Department used a robot to carry out deadly force for the first time in 2016. It used a bomb-disposal robot — the same Remotec F5A model owned by the SFPD — armed with an explosive device to kill a suspect who shot and killed five police officers and wounded several others. At the time, Dallas police chief David Brown said the department “saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
Last month, a report from The Intercept revealed that California’s Oakland Police Department was also considering letting shotgun-equipped Remotec F5A robots use deadly force. Shortly after the report came out, the Oakland PD announced on Facebook it decided against adding “armed remote vehicles to the department.” Meanwhile, a group of robot makers, including Boston Dynamics, signed a pledge not to weaponize their robots earlier this year.
The word robot is often misused. It should refer to a machine with a certain amount of autonomy. "Piloted robots" are drones, not robots. I have no problem with a police force using a drone if deadly force is dictated in rare circumstances. I DO have a problem with violations of the first law by independently operating robots.
If he's smiling don't be misled....it's just wind.I have to say it gives me a little bit of a happy warm feeling when a comment I made about police use of force gets a "like" from @maximus otter.
If he's smiling don't be misled....it's just wind.
Following up on what I said above, this is a robot, and I wouldn't want it to be authorized to use deadly force. A remotely operated vehicle is still run by a human. A problem arises when you call remotely operated vehicles "robots", then write up the rules for them, and in the process make those rules apply to true robots.Goofy Korean police robot with silly name
San Francisco to allow police 'killer robots'
San Francisco's ruling Board of Supervisors has voted to let the city's police use robots that can kill.
The measure permits police to deploy robots equipped with explosives in extreme circumstances.
Dr Catherine Connolly, from the group Stop Killer Robots, said the move was a "slippery slope" that could distance humans from killing.
The city's police - the SFPD - told the BBC they do not currently operate any robots equipped with lethal force.
They said though that there may be future scenarios in which lethal force could be used by a robot.
A spokesperson for the police said "robots could potentially be equipped with explosive charges to breach fortified structures containing violent, armed, or dangerous subjects".
Very British robotsRobots maintainstiff upper lip.
A photo of delivery robots patiently queuing at a pedestrian crossing has prompted dozens of comments from people on Facebook.
The Starship Technologies robots were introduced in Cambridge this month.
Cyclist Naomi Davies spotted the queue of seven in Coleridge Road on Tuesday and said they waited through three changes of lights before one crossed.
Starship said robots were not "shy" about asking for help, but in a very "English" way, were "happy to queue".
San Francisco Reverses Vote to Let Police Use Killer Robots After Fierce Backlash
More than 100 people protested a policy allowing robots to use lethal force at San Francisco City Hall.In a hasty retreat, San Francisco lawmakers have reversed a vote allowing local police to use remote-controlled robots equipped with lethal explosives in extreme situations. The move comes after a wave of backlash from the community and activist organizations.
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 Tuesday on a revised version of the policy, which now prohibits police from using robots to kill people. Tuesday’s vote was a surprise turn of events after the board approved the policy last week, including a clause allowing for the lethal bots. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the board rarely changes its mind on second round votes, which are typically seen as formalities. However, since the first vote on Nov. 29, the policy has received a wide range of criticism both locally and nationally. Lawmakers will debate the issue for another week before voting on yet another version of the policy next week.
On Monday, more than 100 people gathered to protest the killer robot policy at City Hall, according to board supervisor Dean Preston, one of the lawmakers who led the effort to reject the policy. The same day, 44 local organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU of Northern California, and the San Francisco Public Defender, sent a letter voicing their opposition to the policy to San Francisco Mayor London Breed and the Board of Supervisors.
“The people of San Francisco have spoken loud and clear: There is no place for killer police robots in our city,” Preston said in a statement after the vote. “There have been more killings at the hands of police than any other year on record nationwide. We should be working on ways to decrease the use of force by local law enforcement, not giving them new tools to kill people.”
According to the Chronicle, the original policy allowing police to use killer robots has now been kicked back to the Board’s rules committee, which may choose to revise it or scrap it entirely. A final vote on the city’s robot policy is expected next week.
The San Francisco Police Department had advocated for the option to use killer robots “when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and officers cannot subdue the threat after using alternative force options or de-escalation tactics.” Only the chief of police, the assistant chief of operations, and the deputy chief of special operations would be able approve the use of robots as a deadly force option.
In recent years, police officers have started to consider that using robots as an option of deadly force could be useful in certain situations. Advocates in favor of the policy point to an incident in 2016, when Dallas police sent in a robot with a bomb to take down a sniper who had killed five police officers. San Francisco’s police department states that it doesn’t have plans to arm the robots in its fleet with firearms. Instead, the police envision giving the robot explosives “to breach a structure containing a violent or armed subject.”
Opponents of the policy, meanwhile, argued that giving the police permission to use robots to kill would deprive people of due process of law. Others said the policy could be abused and allow police officers to kill people with ease.
“The use of robots in potentially deadly force situations is a last resort option. We live in a time when unthinkable mass violence is becoming more commonplace,” San Francisco Police Chief William Scott said in a statement on Dec. 1. “We need the option to be able to save lives in the event we have that type of tragedy in our city.”
The robots are currently used to dispose of bombs, deal with hazardous materials, or as tools in other incidents when police have to maintain a safe distance from the scene.
I've always known about that film but somehow I've never seen it. I'm going to have to find that now.https://gizmodo.com/san-francisco-police-robots-kill-lethal-vote-against-1849864078
Rumor has it that a chance viewing of the film Chopping Mall might have influenced them as well!
From the film:I've always known about that film but somehow I've never seen it. I'm going to have to find that now.
edit: ACE! .. thank you
Absolutely nothing can go wrong.