The UN is about to debate killer drone ethics. Can Skynet withstand the slow, grinding fury of a Committee?
In an effort to stop killer drones before they start, humanity is about to unleash its most fearsome weapons: a long, drawn out bureaucratic process and a committee. Both weapons will be brought to bear by the United Nations' which will next week stage an "informal Meeting of Experts" to discuss the questions related to emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS)". From the article:
The questions will be debated for four days in Geneva and will include:
- What are the differences between autonomy and automaticity?
- How the development of LAWS could impact on humans?
- Could robotics be used in conflicts? If so, what ethical questions does this raise?
- Are LAWS socially acceptable?
- What is the impact of the development of LAWS on the right to use force?
- What is the impact of the development of LAWS on international security and stability, and on military doctrines?
The meeting will take place under the auspices of The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the United Nations body that has created protocols for the use of land mines and blinding laser weapons. The meeting is therefore an early step towards a possible new protocol that would outline rules of war as applied to LAWS.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 09 2014, @05:28PM
I quit using Slashdot in part because of biased smart-ass summaries like this.
(Score: 3, Informative) by starcraftsicko on Friday May 09 2014, @05:41PM
Normally I'd agree with you, but TFA is discussing the UN. Sometimes you have to laugh at a thing (or joke at its expense) else cry and quit in despair. The only thing more mindbogglingly foolish than looking to the UN for a solution to a problem is looking to a UN committee...
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 09 2014, @06:00PM
We can all ditch UN when you propose a better solution. Until then...
(Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Friday May 09 2014, @06:12PM
I proposed endless committee meetings while everyone associated with creating JarJar are tortured. Are you with me?
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Saturday May 10 2014, @12:23AM
No. But I'd go with tiny pickles raining from the sky.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by ls671 on Friday May 09 2014, @09:29PM
"Sometimes you have to laugh at a thing"
Well, my first though was they must have been watching the new 24s, the attacks they are talking about below are made with hacked US drones:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598754/?ref_=fn_al_tt _4 [imdb.com]
Everything I write is lies, including this sentence.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2014, @05:46PM
Perhaps you left slashdot for the wrong reason. A little character never hurt anyone.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday May 09 2014, @05:57PM
See, I didn't mind the summary too much. What I did mind, was that the summary is basically the entire article, copied and pasted. But then, I should be working... so...
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Friday May 09 2014, @06:40PM
Firstly, your reasons for coming to this site are not the same as mine nor, I suspect, those of all of the other members of the community. Nevertheless, for whatever reason you joined us, the team at SN are genuinely grateful. Without a community, and without comments from the members of that community, there is no site. However, I have to take issue with this particular comment.
My summary is based on that written by the submitter, which in turn is based upon the article indicated in the link.
I have listed the 6 questions that the UN committee are going to consider during the 'Informal Meeting of Experts'. I have not suggested any particular outcome or decision based on any of those questions, nor have I suggested that the outcome of the meeting can be readily discerned at this point. I have displayed no bias at all, and would usually be offended by such an accusation.
There is a humorous reference which states " humanity is about to unleash its most fearsome weapons: a long, drawn out bureaucratic process and a committee." If you check the link you will discover that it is a quote from the article. We DO NOT edit the content of source material, although we may reformat it to suit this site's presentation. We always try to quote sources exactly as written so that we cannot be accused of putting words into someone else's mouth. I strongly believe that quoting the article is a good thing to do in a summary.
The quote is humorous, and clearly intended to be so. I like a life which has a mixture of emotions, and laughter and humour play an important part in everyones's morale and well-being. I have no intention of changing my approach. It's Friday - enjoy life and laugh a little.
This story does not meet your high standards, for which I apologise. I will compare it to your own submissions to see where I went wrong.
Have a good weekend!
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 09 2014, @07:24PM
The summary does make it sound like discussion is an ineffective means to regulate autonomous weapon platforms. Your explanation of it is good though!
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by kwerle on Friday May 09 2014, @07:54PM
And that, in a sentence, is most of the problem. This site's goal seems to be 'to replace /.' Random articles of questionable merit are a good portion of the reason I left /. I went to /. to get news for nerds, stuff that matters. Not having a focus is not a good thing.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 09 2014, @09:19PM
kwerle, please send us more submissions like your last - we will do our best to publish them. You currently have a 100% success rate. In the meantime, we can only work with the submissions that we receive and, as you rightly note, not all of them are of the quality that we would like - nevertheless everyone of them is appreciated. If every member submitted 1 story every 3 months, then we would be able to operate at maximum publication rate 24/7.
I prefer to think of this site as an alternative to the other - we have far fewer resources and a much smaller community at present. But it is enough to build on if we have the support of the majority of the community. Those who criticise but do not contribute, and you are clearly not included in this group, would improve the site immediately if they would simply submit a story that they think is topical and of the right quality.
(Score: 1) by kwerle on Friday May 09 2014, @10:59PM
Post fewer stories.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday May 10 2014, @07:41AM
..and the response that we got was 'Well, if there aren't enough stories, then we are not going to bother coming here'. We do regulate stories based on the length of the submission queue. But when people see '12 stories in the queue' they do not understand that there might be 10 rubbish stories and 2 worth printing. We do not have an editor scanning every submission as it arrives - we all have to fit this job into the rest of our lives and we each give several hours or more every day, 7 days a week. We do not get paid - but people call for us to be 'fired' yet they rarely volunteer to help.
It seems particularly difficult to convince the community that they are the solution. If members would contribute stories on topics that they want to read about and of the quality that they believe is necessary, then there is no problem. But as I am currently on holiday, and I have banged this drum repeatedly over the last few months, it is best I leave the discussion here.
.
(Score: 1) by kwerle on Saturday May 10 2014, @06:05PM
There are always stories in the queue. Is the one I was thinking of posting in there?
Just show us the list. The subject line should be enough.
(Score: 4, Funny) by starcraftsicko on Friday May 09 2014, @05:32PM
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee!"
Of course, she said this while on a platform with JarJar Binks which, in my opinion, completely ruined the effect. I'd be willing to attend a whole series of committee meetings if I could do so with the certainty that he and all of his creators were suffering...
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Friday May 09 2014, @11:12PM
Damn you sir, for reminding me of the Phantom Menace. And in a discussion about ethics no less!
To try and keep vaguely OT, in Ep II the queen got attacked by a drone that unleashed poisonous space centipedes. It could have just exploded, or fired rockets, but no, it had to be something convoluted and defeatable.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 09 2014, @05:39PM
But if you are gonna have a conflict the drones are probably the "safest" option we have. Too many say "Oh we need boots on the ground"...how many of you have ever been shot at? Talk to any soldier that has been in a firefight and they'll tell you that with all the commotion, the fight or flight kicking in, and the desire to protect your squad you are NOT gonna be sitting there weighing the pros and cons of shooting this one or that, its about survival at that point and all bets are off. Hell we see this every day here in the states where a cop gets jittery and shoots the wrong person, see that bit in CA where an ex military guy shot a cop and pretty much anybody in a blue truck was at risk from spooked cops shooting first and checking IDs later.
With the drone you are not only taking the fight or flight and the fear of losing friends, you are also taking out the fear of death of the one holding the gun so they can take their time and hopefully make a rational choice about when and where to fire. I'm sure somebody will bring up "fairness" but what that have to do with war? If you want to make that argument pretty much anything other than duels are "unfair" to one side or the other, I'm sure the Germans and Japanese in WWII didn't think it very fair that we could bomb their homes while they couldn't bomb ours but I doubt anybody here would seriously argue we should have given them Cuba to even the odds. Let us not forget we are dealing with an enemy that has NO problem with using the average soldier's desire to not kill children against them, look up "Iran children plastic key martyr" or"suicide bomb child" for just two examples, so please don't bring up some child getting hit in a strike against a soldier because the enemy KNOWS that generates bad publicity and WILL use that to their advantage. If using drones keeps us from having to send a bunch of troops into a frenzied firefight and allows more time to try to get only the enemy? I'm all for them.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday May 09 2014, @06:11PM
On the other hand, if one country can sit back comfortably at home raining death upon the civilians in another country, then what exactly is that country's motivation to not start a war? I know that right now drone warfare is controlled by the Good Guys, but pretend for a moment it's the Bad Guys who have the drones, and tell me if you still are comfortable with the idea.
For example, let's say that Iran was doing in Israel what the US is doing in Yemen and Pakistan and a bunch of other places. Are you still wholeheartedly approving of drone warfare? How about if Kim Jong Un is hitting targets in Seoul with drones? How about if Vladimir Putin decides to go after Poland for old times' sake?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2014, @09:01PM
I was also going to use the phrase "raining down".
Another meme to mention is "blowback".
The day when EVERYONE has this technology and uses it against "civilian" targets[1] in the countries of their adversaries is not far off.
...and they don't necessarily need something that can be controlled from the other side of the planet via satellite.
With the complete failure of the world's technological powers, to include the USA, in finding the downed Malaysian airliner, it seems obvious to me that undiscovered sleeper cells will soon succeed in a spate of V1-type terrorist activity.
[1] Since artillery was invented, "civilians" have been the majority of casualties of "war".
Mostly children and their mothers.
Certainly since the USA first demonstrated its willingness to utterly destroy cities of 100,000 people, there are no more civilians.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 09 2014, @10:59PM
On the other hand, if one country can sit back comfortably at home raining death upon the civilians in another country, then what exactly is that country's motivation to not start a war?
Reminds me of Star Trek: a taste of armageddon.n [wikipedia.org]
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddo
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10 2014, @07:35AM
Tell that to the hundreds of dead civilians killed by these things.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @06:14PM
> But if you are gonna have a conflict the drones are probably the "safest" option we have.
When the mothers of the country don't have to worry that their children are going to be killed, the resistance to foreign adventurism is no longer a significant factor in politics.
Eliminating the draft was the first big step, shifting the personal investment in war from nearly all parents to only those of kids who volunteered. Even then it's significantly muted because many parents don't really think about it until the war is under way and their kids start talking about signing up.
But occasionally you'll get some political activism [wikipedia.org] after the fact. So, if we can kill them without risking the lives of any (of our) mothers' sons, the military industrial complex can really get down to the business of making money.
(Score: 2) by oodaloop on Friday May 09 2014, @06:20PM
I'd argue that NOT having the draft has made military adventurism worse. Without the draft, the rich and powerful (congressmen and other politicians, lobbyists, our corporate overlords) won't have as many kids going off to war. The volunteer military is largely composed of the lower and middle class (former Marine here, so I can speak from experience and have seen the stats). A fair draft would bring in more rich kids and make the effects felt to those making the decisions.
Many Bothans died to bring you this comment.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @07:35PM
> I'd argue that NOT having the draft has made military adventurism worse.
I think we are in agreement there.
> Without the draft, the rich and powerful (congressmen and other politicians, lobbyists, our corporate overlords) won't have as many kids going off to war.
While I think that can't hurt, those people will always have options available to them like Bush who's congressfather pulled strings to get him in the texas national guard during the vietnam war (and who apparently went AWOL for 17 months from even that minor obligation without punishment [straightdope.com]).
(Score: 2) by oodaloop on Friday May 09 2014, @08:34PM
That's why I used the word fair. And they all didn't get out of it. Plenty of rich folks' kids went to 'Nam and got their hands dirty. Not that I'm a big fan of Bush, but I'm of the opinion that he didn't get hammered because it was the national guard not because his family was rich.
Many Bothans died to bring you this comment.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @09:03PM
> That's why I used the word fair.
Yeah, and I'm saying that fair is (unfortunately) impossible because of the nature of power. Many of those other rich kids were drafted without a fight because they were believers. Just like we still get believers who volunteer today (versus being pressured into it due to financial reasons), such as my nephew the ranger who went in a believer (and came out unconvinced). 25% of enlisted recruits come from families earning over $65K/year. [freakonomics.com]
WRT Bush, I'm saying his case demonstrates that the consequences for the elite who engage in 'legal draft dodging' are nil. His performance in office doesn't matter, just the fact that someone can do that and still become president means wealth and power makes service a choice for those people rather than mandatory.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 09 2014, @06:40PM
Again you are arguing for "fairness" and if that is the case why not just give them training camps in Florida? That way they can set of IEDs here just like they do there, that will be fair yes?
Like it or not wars are ALWAYS gonna be unfair, somebody will ALWAYS have better tech...would carpet bombing be preferable to you? After all there IS a pilot at risk. Or do you not believe in aircraft, perhaps we should ban all tech that was designed past 1918 and we can go back to trench warfare?
If you think appeasement will work I'm sorry but that has been proven false too many times to count, remember Bin laden? His attacks against the USA were because the Saudi government gave the US government a base on their land. And if you think the draft did anything I would ask you where Bush Jr served? Oh yeah drinking PBRs in bama. What turned the American public against Vietnam was NOT the hippies, it was the press highlighting stories like My Lai...when was the last time you saw the press pushing anti-war stories? I would remind you that when Wikileaks printed all that dirty laundry within a month the ONLY story we got was "ZOMFG Assange got laid without a rubber, he be a rapist yo!"
At the end of the day you and the others arguing against the drones really need to take a look at the is ought problem [wikipedia.org] and ask yourself "Am what I am arguing actually an is ought fallacy?" because in 99 out of 100, such as yours? It IS an is ought, you think wars OUGHT to be a honorable exchange between soldiers, that IS not reality. Reality IS an enemy that has no problem using children as both cannon fodder and human shields, that actually puts on broadcasts telling kids jihad is cool using a Mickey Mouse clone [youtube.com] and doesn't give a shit about targeting schools, churches, hospitals, I can provide links if you like. that IS the reality of the situation we are dealing with and while you think wars OUGHT to be honorable they never have and never will be. BTW are you wiling to have your taxes go up by 70%+ to pay for all those PTSDed fellow citizens when they return needing medical treatment for the rest of their lives? Or do you believe the only "fair" thing to do would be to run off to Canada if your neighbors are called up?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @07:21PM
> it was the press highlighting stories like My Lai...when was the last time you saw the press pushing anti-war stories?
Vietnam was the last war with a draft, thus the last time the general populace was personally invested in peace enough to care about anti-war stories.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 09 2014, @09:45PM
Vietnam was the last war with a free press, thus the last time the general press was personally invested in peace enough to care about anti-war stories. FTFY
Follow the money friend, back then the press was owned by companies that didn't have skin in the game, today those same companies are all holding military contracts. Look at the huge protests leading up to Iraq, what did we get from the press? Freedom fries and Dixie Chick record burnings along with "Look at this reality show, aren't they crazy?GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA"
If they put the draft back tomorrow your press would be fawning about how wonderful it is while the bodies being offloaded would never be on camera. During Vietnam you had Rather dodging bullets in street by street firefights, now? you have a fluff piece about opening a new school. The 1% learned that when it comes to hearts and minds the press is the biggest threat and also their biggest weapon, so that problem was taken care of ages ago. If you think the press would care that poor and middle class are dying? I'm afraid you REALLY haven't been paying attention to the past few years.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @10:07PM
> Vietnam was the last war with a free press,
A free press doesn't matter if nobody cares about the story.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday May 09 2014, @10:12PM
This is why drones are immoral, illegal, and cowardly, and what we really need is hairy feet on the ground! One does not simply _walk_ into appeasing Mordor!
(And, um, I think you have the is-ought problem backwards, and you are using it wrong.)
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 10 2014, @05:04AM
Canada's Conservatives solved that problem, close all the Veterans Affairs offices and give them a couple of hundred grand and tell them to go away because this government is about cutting taxes and pensions are only for MPs who got elected twice.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Friday May 09 2014, @11:02PM
"V2 (I am told that you can now mention it in print so long as you just call it V2 and don't describe it too minutely) supplies another instance of the contrariness of human nature. People are complaining of the sudden unexpected wallop with which these things go off . 'It wouldn't be so bad if you got a bit of warning' is the usual formula. There is even a tendency to talk nostalgically of the days of the V1. The good old doodlebug did at least give you time to get under the table, etc. etc. Whereas, in fact, when the doodlebugs were actually dropping, the usual subject of complaint was the uncomfortable waiting period before they went off. Some people are never satisfied."
- George Orwell, 1944-12-01
http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essa y/tribune/AsIPlease19441201.html [telelib.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 10 2014, @04:56AM
That's basically how my Dad described it. The V1 would get quiet and you knew it was going to explode somewhere whereas with the V2 there'd just be random explosions with no warning. He did find the regular air attacks worse though, mostly because they were so often whereas the V* attacks were rare. His home got bombed and he survived by hiding under the table, hard to do with no warning. Scariest was when a phosphorous bomb hit the school ground. A few feet over or slightly different timing...
The big thing that people like my Dad got from the war was it was horrible. He spent his childhood playing in bomb craters, hunted rabbits in bomb craters as with the shortage of food a rabbit was a pretty good catch.
This is what is missing for a lot of people, especially Americans. They've never really experienced war, it's always safely over there rather then coming home. Don't even have rationing.