Yesterday we talked about the Oakland Police Department’s use of license plate readers, which has been so fiercely resisted by so-called “privacy rights” advocates. Today, I want to talk about another technological issue: lethal autonomous weapons (or LAWs), which similarly have drawn intense opposition from the same quarters.
LAWs are essentially killer robots that, in the words of the U.S. Department of Defense, “once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator," in situations considered too dangerous to engage real police officers. LAWs are “capable of learning and adapting their functioning in response to changing circumstances in the environment in which [they are] deployed, as well as capable of making firing decisions on their own.”
Just three days ago, the Oakland Police Department let it be known they were considering the use of LAWs, arguing that in a situation such as an active shooter holed up inside a house or school (as we saw in Uvalde, Texas), a LAW could make a crucial difference and save lives. And that’s when the blowback hit the fan.
The Police Commission—comprised in many cases of people with an active distrust of cops—was shocked, shocked that a criminal might actually be shot—and by a robot! Typical of the negative response was that of a self-described “independent journalist,” who observed, “It’s billed as a de-escalation facilitator, but [OPD] want to keep it open as a potential lethal weapon.”
Someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argued, “The ease of use of weapons as well as the dangerous legal precedence justifying the casual use of weapons makes police less likely to attempt to deescalate situations.” Although OPD emphasized “the need to keep extreme options on the table for extreme circumstances” and practically begged the Police Commission “to allow such a killer robot in case of exigencies,” the handwriting on the wall was clear: powerful voices in Oakland, who seem not to be bothered by the murders and daily felonies, are determined to keep crime-fighting tools out of OPD’s hands.
The result was predictable: Yesterday, OPD announced they had “reversed course on armed robots and [that they] would not seek approval to use the remote killing machines after initially exploring the idea over a series of meetings.”
“The department did not say why it had decided to abandon the option,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle; nor have my own inquiries been responded to. So we can only infer why OPD stood down. With everything they have to deal with—a vengeful Police Commission, a hopelessly anti-police City Council, a Privacy Commission that won’t let OPD do their job, a Federal monitor (Judge Orrick) who’s had his food on OPD’s neck for years, and ambulance-chasing lawyers anxious to sue OPD—I suspect that Chief Armstrong and his team decided they didn’t need the ACLU, the EFF and other “privacy rights” groups hounding them. OPD knuckled under, thereby depriving us, the people of Oakland, of yet another technology that could have been used to fight criminals.
SAVE THE DATE! We’re having a meet-the-candidates picnic in San Antonio Park this Saturday, Oct. 22, starting at noon. Here’s the Eventbrite announcement:
Please sign up. If you come, bring a snack. It will be fun and educational.
Thanks,
Steve Heimoff