Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERVISORS voted yesterday to put the brakes on a controversial policy that would have let police use robots for deadly force just days after their approval of the plan generated fierce pushback.
The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to explicitly ban the use of robots in such a fashion for now.
But they sent the issue back to a committee for further discussion and could vote in the future to let police use robots in a lethal manner in limited cases.
The board voted last week to allow the use of deadly robots in extreme circumstances.
The police department said it had no plans to arm the robots with guns but wanted the ability to put explosives on them and use them to contact, incapacitate or disorient dangerous or armed suspects when lives are at risk.
The initial vote thrust the famously liberal city into the centre of a debate about the future of technology and policing, with some saying arming robots was a step too close to something one would see in a dystopian science fiction movie.
Though robot technology for policing has become more widely available, departments across the country have rarely used it to confront or kill suspects.
Three supervisors who rejected the policy from the beginning joined dozens of protesters on Monday outside City Hall to urge the board to change course.
They chanted and held signs with phrases like “We all saw that movie… No Killer Robots”.
Supervisor Dean Preston was among them, and yesterday he told his colleagues the public had not been given enough time to voice their concerns about such a pressing issue.
“The people of San Francisco have spoken loud and clear: There is no place for killer police robots in our city,” he said in a statement after the vote.
We should be working on ways to decrease the use of force by local law enforcement, not giving them new tools to kill people.
The vote was the result of a new state law that requires police departments to inventory equipment including certain guns, grenades, armoured vehicles and battering rams and to seek explicit approval for their use.
So far, only San Francisco and Oakland have discussed lethal robots as part of that law. Oakland police wanted to arm robots with shotguns but backed down in the face of public opposition, instead opting for pepper spray.
Some San Francisco officials wanted to proceed with allowing robots to use deadly force in certain cases, arguing nothing substantive had changed to warrant a reversal.
But the vote to advance the broader police equipment policy — including the ban on lethal robots — passed unanimously.
It still allows police to use robots to check out potentially dangerous scenes so that officers can stay back.
“Having robots that have eyes and ears and can remove bombs, which happens from time to time, is something that we want the police department to do while we continue to have this very controversial discussion,” said supervisor Aaron Peskin, who brought forward last week’s motion around the use of robots.
The new policy needs another vote to take effect.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good fun watching them play separate parties.
FFG are one…
Like most other issues, FG have royally made a balls of the PSC.
@P Quinn: It’s just more law breaking to add to an already existing mountain of Fine Gael law breaking.
What a c u next tuesday
I like the idea of a one card for all services. There is no doubt, Doherty was hoping to morph this card into an Identity Card through applying its mandatory use in other public service area in a sneaky creeping backdoor manner.
I have been opposed all my life to a national ID card but the world has changed dramatically and our safety and security is under threat as never before from groups such as Isis and their fellow travellers. Therefore I support the extension of the PSC but lets just call it a National ID Card and be done with it.
@Gino Brancato: not a hope its a gateway to a facist state.
@Gino Brancato: war of Indepence, civil war, two world wars and cold war nuclear threat. These were all far greater threats to our security and safety and yet we endured despite the lack of a PSC card. It is in fact a very safe time to be alive with the only real threat to our safety and security coming from global issues of climate change and environmental destruction and the ensuing issues resulting. That is in fact what poses an existential threat to us and which the government seems to have very little concern about dealing with. Those are the issues you should be concerned about and which will have a real impact on our lives.
@Chris OB: we are already there
Okay, Journal, you win. I get that you need to tidy up the comments section at times, and we can get a bit carried away here with our feedback. Whilst I applaud the overall venture, and the fact that it’s free, let’s not kid ourselves; the comments section provides the oxygen that allows The Journal to punch above its weight (if you will pardon the mangled metaphor…).
So if you keep deleting comments, you will be accused of bias, even by moderates such as myself. What’s it going to be, Journal? Perhaps you just need to let it fly, and have a little faith. And if there are some off-colour remarks, assume (usually correctly) that decent folk will be along soon to readdress the balance, and give them a ticking off.
Please don’t send us to RTE. It’s so anodyne. It’s magnolia. And, let’s face it, there are generally no comments either. Let us have our say. Otherwise I’ll just have to take my ball and bugger off. And I know I will miss you more than you will miss me, but in the end, if you have no readers… well, what’s the point?
Why is the journal taking down most of the comments on this article ?
Is the journal totally FG controlled ?
@Pius Flynn: yes in a nutshell
The current legislation is VERY clear.
The card is only mandatory for use with Department of Social Protection services.
Nothing more or less.
Others demanding they it MUST be produced by law, are absolutely lying. No if or buts.
@Unitedpeople: … demanding THAT it must be produced…
Doherty is before the committee to answer questions . The fact she stated she won’t lower herself only adds to the arrogance of this paracetic woman.
Is there a link to see this live or what’s left of it…may be interesting
@Eoin Doyle: thk
She has to be the most obnoxious T.D.EVER she has a face like a slapped a##e. or typical ffg. er
@Aishling Carslake: Whatever about that, it’s interesting how she attempts to point the finger at FF to blame for the card for introducing the legislation, in her words, to underpin it. What could FG do then but run with it?
There was no need for what had been introduced. Some requirement for Social Welfare payments had long been called for, yet the PSC had become mandatory for other Public Services and the data retained. As others have said, there was no threat, no urgent need and forcing people to get a card does not equate to satisfied customers. Clearly our own Data Protection Commissioner disagrees with her and the government, perhaps if they were more open and honest about what they were doing and why the outcome may have been different. As things stand I don’t think anyone would believe her, about anything. She has zero credibility.
She’s right she shouldn’t lower herself . The trolls will be like ants crawling out to make the negative comments
@Margaret Mcgarry: Excuse me! As a regular troller around these parts, I take exception to being called an ant! At least grant us beetle or cockroach status.
@Margaret Mcgarry: your right she shouldnt lower herself because if she did she would be under ground, and why does she always have to look like a rabbit caught in headlights, she doesnt know what she is talking about she is reading from a script….
@Margaret Mcgarry: she wouldn’t lower herself to pay her taxes either
@Margaret Mcgarry: Spoken like a true blueshirt… anybody who criticise the paracites is now deemed a troll.. Unlike Leo and his cohorts the ordinary Joe soap has no access to PR. Companies paid for by the taxpayers.
@Margaret Mcgarry: She’s a waste of space. Inept and has failed as a TD. I hope she fails to get elected in GE2020.
It is a PUBLIC SERVICES CARD, plural, public, & medical cards, driving licences, tax certs, passports, et al, are components of our social structure which do very badly need to be co-ordinated to prevent errors,fraud & criminality, including terrorism.
The state needs to know those in the state it is responsible to protect in health & security, & no one has any right to drop out.
It may well be described as a big brother scheme, but we don’t seem to have much objection to voluntarily signing up to all of the on line media systems which spy into every aspect of life, so why the objection to one which helps the state to run better?
@William Kelly: Such is your poor comprehension of the the seriousness and the gravity of this card, you equate it to people freely giving their information to social media platforms. I can leave ANY social media platform whenever I wish. The same cannot be said for PSC holders. We have survived for decades without such a card. Its costing more to implement and run than it is saving through any of the activities you mention. How about researching the full facts, rather than shooting of a comment based on the FG political book of the day?
Time to give her a go in the swing and push like f**k
Can you go lower than low?
What’s the point in having a Data Protection Commissioner if you can just ignore his rulings ?
Someone should take Regina to the vet and put her out of our misery.
Our version of Rebecca Bailey Long… Not too bright.
How can she lower herself any lower when she’s the lowest of the lowest disgusting person
Doherty is as useless as most of her colleagues but regarding the card, I don’t know what all the fuss is about
We should have a national identity card for all.
@John Tobin: what’s a passport then?Or even a passport card?
have your say