Ruh-Roh.

Although it is not Robo-Cop and their movement and usefulness is limited, Police departments are considering, and some already have begun, using robotic dogs in dangerous situations.

In 2019, Massachusetts State Police became the first law enforcement agency to use a four-legged robot dog named Spot.

Spot was used by the state police bomb squad. Besides approaching a device and inspecting it, part of the initial trial run was to see how well a robot dog could navigate complicated terrains.

Since then, other law enforcement departments have tested the robot dogs in their jurisdictions.

As generally happens when new technology is introduced, people’s attention is on the technology and the Christmas morning excitement each newly revealed gadget elicits, and it is only later when something goes wrong that anyone considers things like proper use, the relation between application, the law, and people’s rights, if any force is applied, at what point might it become excessive, and at what point might proper use cross the line into undue and targeted surveilance.

The need for regulated use may seem unnecessary to some and, perhaps, anti-police to others, but less than a year ago when quelling a disturbance, at his main facility, the Bristol County MA Sheriff used unmuzzled dogs against inmates, a violation of his own procedures and state law.

Although using robot dogs in dangerous situations like bombs or crazed people with weapons pinned in somewhere to avoid the potential loss of life makes sense, unless clear and transparent safeguards are put in place and laws are amended to deal with this new reality, the potential for abuse exists.

You are in a bar. In walks a robot dog the size of a double-wide German Shepherd and begins meandering through the crowd. In many bars on many nights, at least one customer in a popular bar is an undercover police officer, so the robot only makes what was covert overt.

Now, some of the Bruhs might think it would be funny to tip it over (they can get back up) or take it outside the bar to do any manner and number of funny things with it, but they may forget or don’t realize that, although it is a robot, it is a police robot dog and assaulting it is like assaulting a living police canine.

So, will the above scenario be possible, although preventable, or will use be limited to only dangerous situations that could cost a human life if there was no robot to be sent in?

If there are no set parameters of use, where, when, how, and why they are used could be unevenly applied, and, the police, being a public entity, could be influenced in their use by a politician with an agenda.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts State Police had alread been using a robot that doesn’t look like anything other than some robotic device before they dealt with the robot dog.

Dave Procopio the Massachusetts State Police director of media communications explained,

“Massachusetts State Police have used robots to assist in responses to hazardous situations for many years, deploying them to examine suspicious items and to clear high-risk locations where armed suspects may be present. As part of our continual emphasis on examining the application of new technologies to our mission, we recently completed a test program of the Boston Dynamics robot known as ‘Spot.’”

This viable medicine is capable to achieve or maintain erections discount viagra during the time of intercourse. That’s because the popular summer fruit is also known as a good source of Vitamins B1, Potassium and Magnesium and is responsible for maintaining a link purchase cialis online healthy sex drive or libido. Powerful action with small dosage : Vardenafil HCL is a potent tadalafil without prescriptions composition of ingredients like katha, gurlu and chandras. Every year 1.4 million sildenafil generic from canadas are sold through online as well as offline pharmacies.

The advantage to the dog is its four independent legs that can easily get around objects and climb stairs, while the present robots are limited by wheels or tracks.

However, the need for clear regulation and parameters of use was illustrated by a statement by Michael Perry, vice president of business development for Boston Dynamics, the company that made “Spot” the robot dog.

“What we’re targeting in this space is public safety at large, which includes any first-responder type applications. That’s primarily getting initial assessments of a hazardous environment, whether it’s a fire, hazmat or a potential bomb threat, before you have to send in people.”

What exactly is meant by “public safety at large” followed by one example of application, “any first responder type application”, without enumerating any other uses among which this is only one example of many?

Law enforcement agencies that opt for obtaining “Spot” are advised by the company’s user manual that Spot shouldn’t be used to physically harm people or intimidate them.

Again. My local county sheriff. Unmuzzled dogs to intimidate inmates in spite of his own policies and state law.

People often ignore the advice in the user manual.

I have known many first responders over the years in many places, and have seen them work in some perilous situations, so I welcome the dog eliminating the gamble with human life.

I would like to know, though, especially when I am somewhere that does not need first responder, if a robot dog just might saunter in checking people out like that creepy robot thing at Stop and Shop.

Oh, and let’s be honest.

Since I live in the down town area of a multi-racial city just a few blocks from public housing, I would like to know that if we get one of these locally, will the robot dog just patrol that area, or will it wander by my less “ethnic” apartment building.

As law enforcement deploys more of these robots there is a choice. Law enforcement with community input can prevent problems by establishing clear standards for use, or it can wait until a problem has grown until the remedy becomes too costly.