The situation:
Imagine you’re out for a walk. There’s an unfamiliar mechanical buzzing. You start to scan for the source and realize there are drones in the area. They notice you.
How the system might work:
The antennae on the drones and an associated ground vehicle, which you may not have noticed, pick up the RF from your cell phone. As programmed, they relay the signals to a common server which triangulates your location. The technology has been around for decades. It’s all possible and legal in NH today.
Cameras and other sensors on the drones recognize you as human. Their AI begins trying to determine your intentions. What are you doing? Are you a threat? Do you have a gun? Are you engaging in crime?
The machines send video feeds. A human monitor can check the videos and decide risk level. If you are a threat intercept can be sent. If not, the drones return to patrol. That’s all possible and legal in NH today. But is it more or less cost effective than standard law enforcement?
The EU has funded development:
According to Zach Campbell at The Intercept, “The European Union is financing a project to develop drones piloted by artificial intelligence and designed to autonomously patrol Europe’s borders. The drones will operate in swarms, coordinating and corroborating information among fleets of quadcopters, small fixed-wing airplanes, ground vehicles, submarines, and boats. Developers of the project, known as Roborder, say the robots will be able to identify humans and independently decide whether they represent a threat. If they determine that you may have committed a crime, they will notify border police.”
Here’s the link to the project website https://roborder.eu
Concerns?
Should we worry that projects like Roborder probably will change how law enforcement work will be done? Is the introduction of these non-human players desirable? Should we be concerned about weaponization? There is recognizable risk of weaponized use against people.
The military currently does it. There are systems or capability for quickly putting such systems in place here, today, in the private sector. The military has used variants for years. Law enforcement treads lightly around discussions of deployment and current uses because of the issues around them. However the time has come to bring the discussion forward.
Much of the development of Roborder is classified but its release is scheduled for 2020. Our legislators should consider whether such work could be brought here. Is it here today? Can it be modified or enhanced to harm humans? Does it or will it infringe on our constitutional safeguards? It will be available for export.
They should also grasp the potential for near future deployment of variants of such technology. Where does application of this technology lead to in the future? What level of surveillance is tolerable? Should it be in general or situational use? Should judicial concurrence be required before use? When and how is it needed? What safeguards are needed? Who enforces those safeguards?
Conclusion:
When it comes to technology with the potential to be used against vulnerable people, most especially in places with few human rights protections, who decides what we should and should not develop and where and how we deploy it? Who decides the needed qualifications to operate such a system? We demonstrably cannot control targeting of political opposition by the IRS. Why is it reasonable that we should expect safe constitutional continued use of a drone surveillance and interdiction resource?