Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday June 05, @10:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the kill-all-humans dept.

Killer Drone 'Hunted Down A Human Target' Without Being Told To:

After a United Nations commission to block killer robots was shut down in 2018, a new report from the international body now says the Terminator-like drones are now here.

[...] The March 2020 attack was in Libya and perpetrated by a Kargu-2 quadcopter drone produced by Turkish military tech company STM "during a conflict between Libyan government forces and a breakaway military faction led by Khalifa Haftar, commander of the Libyan National Army," the Star reports, adding: "The Kargu-2 is fitted with an explosive charge and the drone can be directed at a target in a kamikaze attack, detonating on impact."

[...] "The lethal autonomous weapons systems were programmed to attack targets without requiring data connectivity between the operator and the munition: in effect, a true 'fire, forget and find' capability" – suggesting the drones attacked on their own.

[...] In August of last year, Human Rights Watch warned of the need for legislation against "killer robots" while NYC mayoral candidate Andrew Yang has called for a global ban on them – something the US and Russia are against.

See also: New Scientist magazine and the Star.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, @10:01PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, @10:01PM (#1142487)

    Legal use of mines in war is not to wound or kill. Mines are used to "shape the battlespace", as they say now, or to deny the enemy to ability to cross certain areas. To do that, they need to be clearly marked, as in "Minefield! Do not be walking around here!" (Unless, that is, you are a Giant African Pouched Rat!) You might say that even if you do not put up signs, the first trooper entering will become a sign to the remaining, but without signage, it might be your own forces that run afoul of mines.

    And the minefield must be mapped, so that after the engagement, each mine can be removed. This is was was not done in Cambodia, and several other places around the world, so the abandoned mines are blowing limbs off of innocent civilians years later. And then there is the Korean DMZ.

    Planting mines unmarked say on trails, with the intention of killing the enemy is a violation of the Rules of War. The mine is triggered by the victim, automatically, so there is no discrimination. A booby-trap mine will take out friend or foe, livestock or wildlife, children, equally well. Mines that are under command control are better, but it is like the difference between a claymore on trip wire versus one on a clicker with a responsible combatant.

    AWS are similar, in that the victim triggers the weapon, by being the target. Of course, mistakes in programming are possible, but the main thing is no person is responsible for the attack. So they are similar to booby-trap mines, and thus illegal under the Hague Conventions, and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) - 1980. https://research.un.org/en/mines/treaties [un.org]

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 06, @11:53PM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 06, @11:53PM (#1142526) Homepage Journal

    First you point out that a mine is completely indiscriminate, and set off by the first person or animal to come along.

    TFA indicates that one certain individual was being sought out, and killed by this drone. The drone was very discriminating.

    No, they are very dissimilar, and you can't equate the two. Complete fail.

    I have problems with these drones, but please highlight the actual problems, and stop trying to draw nonexistent parallels.

    --
    Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point and you may get away with Flamebait - 'Zumi
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, @12:58AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, @12:58AM (#1142563)

      No, they are very dissimilar, and you can't equate the two. Complete fail.

      I see you fail to grasp the concept. I is not the targeting, it is the decision to target. If you automate the targeting, then it is the target itself that prompts the attack, not the attacker. Now just a certain amount of pressure on a plate may seem different that all the parameters that might go into the programming of a killer robot, put they are exactly the same in that you are setting up those conditions of initiation in advance. That is what makes it a booby-trap.

      And, no one really cares what your problems are with killer drones, Runaway. Just hold still, for a bit.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 07, @01:43AM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 07, @01:43AM (#1142575) Homepage Journal

        Now just a certain amount of pressure on a plate may seem different that all the parameters that might go into the programming of a killer robot, put they are exactly the same in that you are setting up those conditions of initiation in advance.

        Translation: Poster doesn't understand how a booby trap is made, nor does he understand how to program a drone, therefore the two are equivalent.

        --
        Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point and you may get away with Flamebait - 'Zumi
        • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday June 09, @03:17AM (2 children)

          by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 09, @03:17AM (#1143414)

          It is certainly a wide gap between a pressure plate calibrated for human (or vehicle) weight versus loading a facial recognition profile, but it is an interesting train of thought. At what point between "anyone/thing matching this weight" to "anyone/thing matching this 3d profile" do you go from indiscriminate to discriminate? If your 3d profile is simply a generic anthropomorphic model with wide matching parameters, what then?

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 09, @04:51AM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 09, @04:51AM (#1143432) Homepage Journal

            Good question. If your parameters are too broad, well, you'll fail to get the guy you want. The drone/weapon will have been wasted. Of course, that won't stop the military claiming that they actually killed a terrorist, even if that terrorist happens to be a little 6 year old girl playing with dolls.

            I suppose that I've given the benefit of the doubt to the programmers, assuming that they at least tried to use meaningful input.

            --
            Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point and you may get away with Flamebait - 'Zumi
            • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday June 09, @07:02AM

              by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 09, @07:02AM (#1143456)

              If it's a single-shot device, sure, you wasted it. But what if it has whole magazine of "terrorist"-dispatching munition? At that point someone might very well be tempted to go lose with the parameters in an effort to ensure that it /at least/ gets the intended target. A walking sentry gun seems all too doable already...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, @07:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, @07:41AM (#1142677)

      "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"

      [Though this says the exact same thing as some other comments (probably by another AC!) it is not spam, because it bares repeeting since Runsaway does not seam to stand under it. ]