Robots on Patrol: What People Think of Security Robots
The deployment of security robots in public spaces, such as streets, parks, and shopping malls, is on the rise. One notable incident that drew significant attention was the New York Police Department’s decision to cancel its contract with Boston Dynamics after facing public backlash over its use of Digidog, an autonomous robotic security dog. The incident sparked fears and raised questions about the implications of deploying robots in public spaces.
To delve deeper into the perceptions, concerns, and expectations surrounding security robots, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews. Our research aimed to shed light on the characteristics people ascribe to these robots, expectations regarding their functions, and overall attitudes toward their use. In this blog post, we’ll explore the insights from our study and the contributions it makes to the existing literature on security robots, as well as demonstrating the need and desire for community engagement in deploying security robots.
What do people think security robots can do?
Our study revealed that people ascribe various characteristics to security robots.
Surveillance Capabilities: Participants in our study often described security robots as highly observant, equipped with an array of sensors and cameras to monitor their surroundings continuously.
Efficiency: Respondents frequently mentioned that they expected security robots to be efficient in performing their tasks.
Lack of Emotion: Many interviewees emphasized the unemotional nature of security robots.
What do people expect security robots are for?
Our study identified several key points regarding the public’s expected functions and roles of security robots:
Patrolling and Deterrence: A significant expectation was that security robots would play a crucial role in patrolling and deterring potential criminal activities.
Reporting and Data Collection: Participants also anticipated that security robots would excel in data collection and reporting.
Human Officer Assistance: Some interviewees believed that security robots could complement human officers.
How do people feel about the use of security robots?
Our study uncovered a range of attitudes toward the use of security robots:
Optimism: Some participants expressed optimism about the potential benefits of security robots, including increased safety, reduced crime, and efficient resource utilization by law enforcement.
Privacy Concerns: Privacy concerns were prevalent among interviewees.
Ethical and Accountability Concerns: A subset of participants raised ethical concerns about the use of force by autonomous robots.
Community engagement: The missing piece
One common thread that emerged from these interviews was the importance of community involvement in shaping the development and deployment of security robots. It became evident that many of the fears and concerns raised by participants could be addressed through meaningful engagement with the communities affected by these technologies.
Engaging communities in the decision-making process surrounding security robots can help:
Address Concerns: By involving community members in discussions, developers and law enforcement agencies can gain a better understanding of the specific concerns and fears people have about these robots.
Ensure Accountability: Community engagement can serve as a mechanism for accountability.
Foster Trust: Transparency and open dialogue can foster trust between the public and those responsible for deploying security robots.
Avoid Bias and Discrimination: Community input can help identify and address potential biases and discriminatory practices in the use of security robots.
Contributions to the existing literature
Our study contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding security robots in several ways:
Community-Centric Approach: We highlight the importance of involving affected communities in the design and deployment of security robots. Their perspectives and concerns must be integrated into the decision-making process.
Understanding Perceptions: By examining public perceptions, our research provides valuable insights into how individuals view security robots. This understanding can inform the development of robots that align more closely with community expectations.
Balancing Benefits and Concerns: We underscore the need to strike a balance between the potential benefits of security robots, such as enhanced safety and efficiency, and the concerns related to privacy, ethics, and accountability.
Conclusion
The deployment of security robots presents both promise and peril. The appropriate use of security robots has the potential to enhance public safety, they also raise legitimate concerns about privacy, ethics, and accountability. Our study highlights the vital role of community engagement.
