Home / Blogs / Business / The Bulletin
Follow this blog:
RSS

Should we ‘ban killer robots before it’s too late’?

By | November 20, 2012, 4:38 AM PST

The Human Rights Watch has issued a plea for governments to preemptively ban autonomous drones capable of killing.

The U.S. Navy's MK 15 Phalanx fires automatically on incoming missiles. A precursor to future drones?

In a report written in conjunction with the Harvard Law School, “Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots,” the Human Rights Watch has called for preemptive action to stop the advancement and deployment of autonomous drones that are capable of killing without intervention by human operators.

Within the 50-page study, the rights group calls autonomous drones “killer robots” and says that tackling the issue now is the only way to stop the future abuse of military force — and the unnecessary deaths of civilians. The report urges governments to consider “an international treaty that would absolutely prohibit the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons.”

There are currently no completely independent drones that are equipped with killing capabilities. Instead, a human operator is required to take responsibility for the final push of a button. However, advances in technology — mainly stemming from the U.S. — have resulted in autonomous surveillance drones and trackers. If military technology continues to go down the same road, it is reasonable to expect these examples to be precursors to robots that have more autonomy on the battlefield.

According to the rights group, some experts predict that this change could take place within 20 to 30 years.

“Giving machines the power to decide who lives and dies on the battlefield would take technology too far,” said Steve Goose, Arms Division director at Human Rights Watch. “Human control of robotic warfare is essential to minimizing civilian deaths.”

A major concern is the lack of accountability that fully autonomous weapons would create. Not only could it violate international law, but the Human Rights Watch says that trying to hold military personnel responsible for a robot’s actions would “present significant challenges”.

It may also be the case that robotic soldiers would not be able to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, and would not possess the capabilities to assess a situation properly — resulting in a lack of balance between risk, civilian safety and military advantages of an attack.

“Action is needed now, before killer robots cross the line from science fiction to feasibility,” Goose said.

Image credit: HRW/Chief Fire Controlman Brian Kirkwood, U.S. Navy

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Charlie Osborne

About Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Contributing Editor

Charlie Osborne is a freelance journalist and graphic designer based in London. In addition to SmartPlanet, she also writes the iGeneration column for business technology website ZDNet. She holds degrees in medical anthropology from the University of Kent.

Follow her on Twitter.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
29
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
As if humans were accountable in war.
"A major concern is the lack of accountability that fully autonomous weapons would create." Splitting the hairs of the dead, aren't we? As if humans were meaningfully accountable in war. Accountable like the My Lai massacre and hundreds if not thousands more atrocities - known and unknown. Autonomy has evolved and advanced since physical contact between opponents was lost and the anonymity of killing increases. Any missile with a guidance system becomes autonomous once it is launched - these people are a little late to the smarts party.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
20th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Nothing but scare propaganda
Get real, people. A "drone" is nothing but a model airplane put to military use. As such, it's too small to carry much of a payload, and usually carries transmitting spy-cams to use in guiding bigger, manned planes for air-strikes. The few drones that do carry missiles can't carry many of them, and they're never very big; the best they can do is fire off small smart-missiles for specific pin-point targets. There's no way that such can be autonomous; some human has to guide the plane and decide when to fire it.

As for the Phalanx, its ancestor -- then called the "telepathic gunsight" -- was first developed for use 'way back in Vietnam. All it can do is automatically fire at a target that's been previously programmed into its computer. What it's good for is shooting down incoming missiles of specific and recognized types. That's a very limited application. "Killer robots" always need live human oversight for anything but absolutely simple tasks -- which are very few in modern warfare.

The real reason that the Arabs and their flaks howl about drones is that they *work*; they've been good at targeting Arab terrorist activities and guiding counterstrikes. Having no comparable weapon, and not being good enough shots to shoot the drones down, the Arabs have fallen back on propaganda to scare the ignorant into disarming their deserved enemies. Don't fall for it.
Posted by Leslie Fish
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Killer Robots
I equate the "killer robots" or drones to the cameras used to monitor people movement. People who aren't involved in criminal or subversive activities are ot too concerned about the technology. If our enemies have the technology, they will use it against us. As for the Hammas and other Muslim groups who hide in mosques, hospitals and schools so they can fire weapons at others and expect nothing in return, it isn't going to work with Israel this time. When will the U.S. learn this trick by the terrorists? If the drones give us an advantage in the fight against terror, so be it. /s/ Retired U.S. Navy, Viet Nam vet.
Posted by docplaster
20th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
As in never ever??
"There's no way that such can be autonomous; some human has to guide the plane and decide when to fire it." - are we talking about never ever??
Never is a very long time. I know it was only a movie, but did you see "The Terminator"? Fifty years from now drones will NOT only be radio controlled planes anymore........
Posted by Riaanh
Updated - 20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Technology Update
The Terminator series, was entertaining, but the capabilities of the androids was considerably underrated. Even current technology can use microwave scanners to detect the heartbeat of someone behind concrete and re-bar 100' away. Do you think, that crouching behind something will protect you from that?

A hunter android will likely have an internal short wavelength mass spectrometer (gamma scanner). Such devices are in use now. You can scan something, or a building, or a car and see everything, based upon the molecular makeup of the target wavelength. Say you select the chemical makeup of a particular protein or molecule that is in the human body, it will light up like fluorescent paint in a night club to the scanner. Try hiding something from that. Even lead can be penetrated with this technology. Admittedly this is a close range technology, but if it already used the longer wavelength scanner to find your beating heart, I doubt hiding under a car will protect you.

Androids might deploy ultra-violet tenatizing devices. These are like tazers on steroids. They are based upon technology that is about ten years old. Wipe one across a crowd and it will remove their conscious nerve signal capabilities for about 30 seconds. You can see, think and hear, but you cannot move. Change the wavelength and fire it at a vehicle and it fries everything electrical inside (the choice weapon a robot would likely use against another drone or robot) It has a range of about 2km, and can knock aircraft down, stop missiles, and temporarily disable living targets as well, you merely need to adjust the frequency for the chosen target. It only stops you from running away, so that you may be tagged as a target, euthanized later, or primed for a wide area attack.

Current face-recognition tech can actively monitor a crowd of people in a dense urban environment and track 1000 targets with a 90%+ accuracy. If you equip A flying drone (I prefer the counter-rotating fan copter types for accuracy, and capability) It can fly over a crowd, and identify human targets within a few milliseconds. Or, it could track an entire group and relay their position to armoured hunter robots already on the ground. And yes, such a machine would not be easy to stop if it was fabricated with a titanium and ballistic fibre exoskeleton. Nothing short of a direct hit from an RPG or rolling over it with a tank would stop it from shooting you.

The military currently uses near-infrared digital guidance systems that are practically impossible, to jam or confuse. Far beyond the capabilities of a civilian population's resources to counteract in a short period of time. If you had a mesh-network of drones, and robots employing such a system, especially if you toss in distributed processing and signals analysis, it could be entirely autonomous and effective at eliminating human targets with an accuracy of over 90%.

Current weapons tech ALREADY has guided ballistics and ranged ballistic firearms technology. So-called fire-and-forget guns, where each round has telemetry and guidance systems capable of calculating maximum damage radius and kill zones for each shot. You cannot simply duck behind something and protect yourself from that. The round will pass you and detonate behind you so that the kill zone includes your safe-haven. Imagine a robot that can fire these based upon updates from a real-time digitally encrypted intelligence network that simply targets any and all humans. The only limits would be when they run out of ammunition.... though you can have guided copter drones constantly resupplying the hunter robots as they advance.

Their ammunition would not be lead, it is heavy and problematic. They would likely use high-tensile aluminum with an incredible muzzle velocity and insanely rapid firing frequency. Some of their munitions may be ceramic fragments encased in a polymer with a chemical explosive as a charge. They would also have kami-kazi type drones that can deploy shaped charges to get through armour plate, a few feet of concrete, or stuff you may have piled up to form a barrier. Likely they will also have chemical weapons and "dirty" warheads to effectively deal with bunkers and strong points.

All of this is possible now. Imagine what may be invented in 20 years? If someone believes that a sociopathic military commander is going to respect some signed pieces of paper, then they are living in a dream state.

The tech you think you know about, is already about ten years old by the time the media is authorized to release it.
Posted by Kieron Seymour-Howell
15th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Can anyone point out any instance in history...
... when a belligerent gave a damn about treaties or humanity?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Novel Idea - book with this concept
Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez, a novel with the concept of autonomous robots in future(near) battles as the central theme. Finished the book yesterday and gained insight into this concept. The author combined autonomous robots who coordinated their attacks hive "swarm" mentality. Action packed and good detailed description of how this could be utilized in a battle situation.
Posted by RetSab
20th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
banning robots, not me
I say do what it takes to win. All is fair in war... Regulations and rules are for sports...
Posted by dhensley@...
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Regulations are even more important in war
Really? You mean torturing enemy troops and children is okay because it might break the spirit of the enemy? You mean dropping nerve gas on a civilian population so you can be sure there will be no guerilla warfare when your troops enter an enemy city is just fine? Or how about raping all the women in a city because your troops deserve some R&R? Rules are more important in war than in peace. Since so many more terrible things are permitted, more rules must be put in place to limit them.
Posted by OldPoet
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Rules of war, lately, are a one-way street, where the western powers
obey them, and the enemy doesn't give a crap about them. Advantage: the enemy. That's not to condone the lack of rules or regulations, but, we are only kidding ourselves if we think/believe that the enemy will observe any of them. Our enemies are the ones who use women and children as shields in the field of battle, and who also use dead children as props to try to gain sympathy for their side or their "predicament".
Posted by adornoe
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Could somebody please correct the article where "access"
should be replaced with "assess", in this clause:

"would not possess the capabilities to access a situation properly"
Posted by adornoe
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Fixed!
Thanks for the tip.
Posted by andrew.nusca
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Get out of the box
Well I guess those that say bring on the droans do not think of their children or them selves as this can, but more likely will be used on you and yours, might want to get your head out of the government psychobabble arse for a minute here and really think for Yourself and YOUR children and grandchildren... nice future you see there??? How many useless killing you need to happen to make you feel "Safe all produced by your loving government" Be very afraid with this type of thinking if ya wanna call it that. Sorry for your family...so sorry as you will be dead and gone probably leaving them with daily fear as many countries already deal with today and for WHAT??? Oh forgot we must have oil right. I think I will go throw up now on your behalf.
Posted by lunamountain
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Drones and lethal Artificial Intelligence
Autonomous drones imply advanced artificial intelligence -- AI that has developed a taste for human blood. That hunger is ominous and, it seems, very real.
Posted by Rudy Haugeneder
Updated - 20th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Rhetoric
The problem with statements like "Giving machines the power to decide who lives and dies on the battlefield" by Goose of HRW is that they do imply artificial intelligence, which is far beyond current technology. It's uncertain whether artificial intelligence is even possible. Autonomous drones will respond to conditions as they're perceived by their sensors (radar, thermal imaging, etc) according to their programming. They won't know what people are, much less appreciate the moral dimensions of killing 1.
Posted by theotherwill
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
AI is here now.
"Watson" is AI. Your car, to a large extent, is AI. Your microwave oven is AI, not to mention your phone. Aircraft of even modest stripes contain AI to a startling degree. Indeed, DEGREE is the issue here.
Posted by Lightning Joe
22nd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
This is only a bandaid on a very large wound
It will delay the demise of humans for a while, but the fact of the matter is, we can ban military robots all we want - but who is to say that a household bot won't go on the fritz and start killing humans?

The danger is not just with military type robots but will our growing dependence upon computers and robots in general. Eventually - the flaws in the software and/or hardware are going to catch up to us.
Posted by Tink!
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Another Step in Total War
Gwenne Dyer wrote a book and a PBS series on War. His thesis is that total war began during the US Civil War; total war includes civilian collateral killings and even deliborate targeting of civilians. The series came out in the early 80's during the peak of the Cold War. His series explained the increasing devastation that has grown since the Civil War as well as the changing strategies that targets population areas to weaken the other side's resolve. He also showed that the militaries of the US and the USSR (before it broke up) used the same training techniques to turn peaceful civilians into soldiers willing to risk death to kill for their country. His suggestion was to use the United Nations to stop war and use it to resolve conflicts; he said that the UN was not great but it was all mankind had.

The use of autonomous robots with independant decision ability to choose to launch lethal arms is a continuation of total war. Having a machine choose to kill or not is a fig leaf to cover our failure to see the targets as fellow humans and find better ways to resolve problems.
Posted by sboverie
20th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Somewhat off
That's Gwynne, not Gwenne, Dyer. I read his book "War" too long ago to remember much. It's quite good. Total war goes back at least as long as recorded history. The conquest of Canaan in the biblical Book of Joshua is an example of it. The American Civil War was the 1st "big" war where the technologies made possible by industrialization played a key role. "War" was written before precision targeting became a dominant technology. Many of the latest munitions are smaller & less destructive than the ones they replaced, but more effective because they're more accurate. This is especially important for drone aircraft because they're much smaller than manned aircraft & so carry fewer & smaller munitions. In the past, a manned aircraft might drop several big bombs in the hope of demolishing a building, where a modern drone will shoot a much smaller missile into a specific room.
Posted by theotherwill
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
DUH!
That's all I can say to this stupid question is, "DUH"!
Posted by darinselby
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Very amusing indeed. But reality is what it is.
Ask yourself this. If someone wants, or intends, on creating a killer robot, do you honestly feel they would respect any sort of ban? ... LOL

No, the ban would only serve to prevent the innocent ones from building them to protect themselves. This is no different than existing gun laws already exist. A criminal mind obviously does not care about rules and bans, only the law abiding ones will be prevented from protecting themselves.... I am constantly amazed at how naive people are. *shakes head*

Fact: robotics technology WILL be militarized as aggressive series of devices that merely view humans as targets and resources. That is how a soulless technical mind thinks. I am sure the sociopathic or autistic people that invent them and run the worlds military groups will be willing to listen to your pleas before you are all machined gunned to free up resources for the 1% ... *tongue in cheek smirk*
Posted by Kieron Seymour-Howell
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Not hypothetical or in the future...
Killer robotic systems have been possible for at least 10 years. Thus they exist.

Are they in use? Nobody admits to it.

Are drones 'model airplanes' incapable of being weapons platforms? No. An automated drone can be made any size...Boeing flew a 747 across the country in the 70-80's from departure gate to arrival gate completely on auto-pilot. Adding a weapon system including target identification is trivial.

Next step back from full-auto is a drone which calls an operator when something matches it's target identification parameters and requests orders. This system requires only one operator for every x drones, depending upon target density...x could range into the hundreds.

The real question is: When do we stop killing each other?

We have not lived in a world of scarcity for at least 30 years. We have not required 'full employment' to run civilization for nearly 50 years.

When we achieved Earth orbit, we gained access to essentially limitless energy, and in 1975 proved that we could generate electricity in orbit and transmit it successfully to the Earth. At that point, only a few years of development, construction and deployment of orbital power generators separated us from our 'energy crisis' and an abundance of energy beyond our needs.

Since energy is the single limiting factor of life, all other 'scarcity' vanishes with the availability of abundant energy. We are not now short of food, pure water, ability to construct housing, clothing, medical care, education for any reason other than the artificially created shortages of those in power who wish to continue to control the world based upon a created scarcity which supports the lie that our resources and economics are zero-sum (e.g. If I win, someone must lose because there's not enough to go around.)

The fact is, that there IS enough of everything to permit everyone to have their needs met at a very high level...but moving from a scarcity-based economics to an abundance-based economics requires elimination of the concept of individuals controlling huge amounts of resources billions of times beyond their own needs.

With abundance, the concept of 'wealth' changes from resources to quality of life.

Our civilization is controlled by people whose mindset is still in the 19th Century.

Millions have died and continue to die because of the greed of a few. Since one of the primary causes of war used to be scarcity (some time back it changed over to 'create fear to control people' and 'squeeze the population for resources then sell them things to destroy and be destroyed in order to increase control.')

Our highest earning people play numbers games and produce nothing, or produce entertainment. This alone tells you that we have vastly more resources than we need to support our population.
Posted by wizoddg
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
You started out somewhat Ok, but then, you ended with a wacky conclusion,
where you have things completely backwards from reality.

The highest earning people in society, are normally the most productive, since, they didn't earn that wealth by simply sitting around and getting it handed to them. The wealthy and well-off, are the people who too risks and worked very hard to earn that wealth. They are the ones who risked their time and wealth to create businesses and the advancements which have brought the whole world into what it's become. They are the creators of robust economies, which in turn create the jobs which most people need in order to have better lives.
Posted by adornoe
21st Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
But... they are also SOCIOPATHS...
Don't forget THAT part of the equation, or you will for sure be surprised one day.

Normal people think of other people. When there is some question whether or not they "ought" to do something, a NORMAL person FIRST thinks of whatever harm might be done by okaying it. Not so, a Sociopath. A Sociopath FIRST thinks of money, and power, and WINNING. His ONLY consideration of other people involved fooling them so that they will let him continue doing what he wants to do (ie, Romney).

Sociopaths comprise roughly one in fifty to a hundred people in all walks of life. Caring ONLY about money gives them a decided edge up in business (a field, mind, where one of the ONLY non-negotiable requirements is to make money, NOT to avoid damage to anyone).

Taken together, I'm confident that by now, MOST of the people ruling us, and selecting candidates for office, are in fact Sociopaths. While the rest of us sit wondering when things are going to start making sense to us, the Sociopaths are having a field day.

http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html
Posted by Lightning Joe
22nd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
skynet
then they decide we all are the problem.. I do not want armed autonomous drones flying over my soil. Don't think it can't happen in Amerika.
Posted by opcom
21st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
AI Liability
"The Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Entities"

google it and read it
Posted by Tygrzyk
21st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
What about Iron Dome?
Generalization is good and sometimes necessary, but let's look at the Israeli Iron Dome system, which defended civilian population from short range rockets.
Due to the short flight time of such rockets, I do not believe that any such defense system could (or should) include a human in the loop. I believe that shipborn anti missile defense system (e.g. Aegis, as well as short range point defense systems) employ the same level of autonomy.
So - what about Iron Dome (and other similar defense systems)?
Posted by israelguy
23rd Nov
0 Votes
+ -
I cannot not see how this can be banned
You can always give the guy who create it a death penality. but people are doing it and killing people everyday.

Good idea if you can really implement it.
Posted by aktabo
25th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Identification Friend or Foe
Distinguishing between civilians and soldiers. This is why soldiers wear uniforms. We will notice though that Hamas and Hezbollah do not wear uniforms. This would make them to easy to identify. In addition they don't distinguish between civillians and soldiers as ALL Israelis are enemies to them. This is evidenced by their continued indiscriminate lobbing of rockets into Israel while the IDF targets as carefully as they can the launching sites. It is also to note that Hamas routinely puts the launching sites on or near playgrounds, schools, and hospitals to allow CNN to show the collateral damage.
Posted by randall.wilkinson@...
26th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive