CCoPS Legislation: Stopping Robotic Dog Patrols

Robotic Surveillance and the Call for Transparency

Robotic devices resembling “dog” forms, manufactured by Boston Dynamics and similar companies, are currently being utilized by law enforcement agencies in several states, including Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York. Despite being presented as experimental deployments, detailed information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these advanced surveillance tools remains largely undisclosed by the involved police departments.

CCOPS and the Need for Regulation

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) champions greater oversight through its CCOPS (community control over police surveillance) framework. This initiative proposes legislation to foster transparency and safeguard civil rights concerning surveillance technologies. Currently, only 19 U.S. cities have adopted CCOPS laws, meaning the vast majority of communities lack mandated transparency from their police forces regarding surveillance practices.

This unrestricted implementation of novel, unproven technologies raises significant concerns for many citizens. Stuart Watt, a leading artificial intelligence expert and CTO of Turalt, expresses strong disapproval.

Expert Concerns and Alternative Applications

“I find both the underlying concept and the practical application of these ‘dogbots’ deeply troubling. They represent a misallocation of resources and divert attention from core policing duties,” Watt stated. “Meaningful community engagement is absolutely essential. Frankly, I question what police departments hope to achieve with these systems. Is the intent to deter through visible surveillance, or to prepare for future enforcement actions?”

Watts further contends, “A portion of law enforcement seems to have lost sight of its fundamental ‘protect and serve’ mission, failing to deliver on either promise.” He suggests that if resources must be allocated to artificial intelligence, they should prioritize assisting vulnerable populations – the homeless, individuals struggling with addiction, sex workers, those experiencing poverty, and marginalized minorities – rather than surveillance.

ACLU Advocacy and Legal Perspectives

The ACLU’s recommendations align with Watt’s suggestions, advocating for clear communication with city councils nationwide. They emphasize the importance of establishing guidelines for the use of these technologies.

Anthony Gualano, a lawyer and special counsel at Team Law, affirms the legal rationale behind CCOPS legislation. “As law enforcement increasingly relies on surveillance technologies, and these technologies become more sophisticated in protecting citizens, legislation mandating transparency becomes crucial to monitor their deployment and application.”

Testing Grounds for Technology

The current legal landscape is particularly worrisome for those concerned about not only the Boston Dynamics robot but also future iterations of such advanced technology. It effectively permits communities to serve as testing grounds for collaborations between Big Tech and government entities to explore new methods of engagement.

Public Backlash and the Case of Digidog

Recent public outcry led the New York Police Department to temporarily suspend its use of a robotic dog, nicknamed Digidog. Following this suspension due to public opposition, the NYPD deployed the robot to a public housing complex in March, a move that was met with considerable resistance and sparked debate about the technology’s future in New York.

The New York Times aptly described the situation, noting that “the NYPD will return the device ahead of schedule after critics highlighted it as a concerning example of overly assertive policing.”

The Path Forward: Transparency and Engagement

While these robotic units possess the potential to aid in crime reduction, law enforcement agencies must prioritize public relations efforts. A constructive starting point would be proactive and positive participation in CCOPS discussions, clearly explaining the technology’s capabilities and its intended use – both in the immediate future and over the long term.