The advent of a robotized police force has come: Boston Dynamics’ “Spot” patrols cities like Honolulu, investigates drug labs in the Netherlands, explores a burned building in danger of collapsing in Germany, and has already assisted the police in responding to a home invasion in New York City. Quadruped robots might soon be on sentry duty at US borders. The Department of Homeland Security has procured Ghost Robotics’ Vision 60—a model that can be equipped with different payloads, including a weapons system. Canine police robots may patrol public spaces, explore dangerous environments, and might even use force if equipped with guns or pepper spray.
This new gadget is not unlike previous tools deployed by the police, especially surveillance equipment or mechanized help by other machines. Even though they slightly resemble the old-fashioned police dog, their functionalities and affordances are structurally different from K9 units: Canine robots capture data on their environment wherever they roam and they communicate with citizens, e. g. by replaying orders or by establishing a two-way audio link. They can be controlled fully through remote-control over a long distance—or they automate their patrol by following a preconfigured route. The law does currently not suitably address and contain these risks associated with potentially armed canine police robots.
As a starting point, we analyze the use of canine robots by the police for surveillance, with special regard to existing data protection regulation for law enforcement in the European Union (EU). Additionally, we identify overarching regulatory challenges posed by their deployment.
In what we call “citizen-robot-state interaction,” we combine the findings of human-robot interaction with the legal and ethical requirements for a legitimate use of robots by state authorities, especially the police. We argue that the requirements of legitimate exercise of state authority hinge on how police use robots to mediate their interaction with citizens. Law enforcement agencies should not simply procure existing robot models used as military or industrial equipment. Before canine police robots rightfully roam our public and private spaces, police departments and lawmakers should carefully and comprehensively assess their purpose, which citizens’ rights they impinge on, and whether full accountability and liability is guaranteed.
In our analysis, we use existing canine robot models “Spot” and “Vision 60” to as a starting point to identify potential deployment scenarios and analyze those as “citizen-robot-state interactions.” Our paper ultimately aims to lay a normative groundwork for future debates on the legitimate use of robots as a tool of modern policing. We conclude that, currently, canine robots are only suitable for particularly dangerous missions to keep police officers out of harm’s way.
