Robot dogs: Surveillance today. What about tomorrow?
Joseph Shiovitz, Graduate Research Assistant, MPA Candidate in Public Policy, John Jay College
In February 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that robot dogs might soon start patrolling the nation’s Southwest border with Mexico. The goal for these robots would be to “force-multiply” the Border Patrol’s presence and reduce human exposure to danger. The robots would be used for mobile surveillance in remote and rugged areas, but would also be deployed on tactical missions in towns, cities, and ports.
The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency reports data for the number of encounters and apprehensions occurring at U.S. borders, including the Southwest border. While funding for border security continues to rise, the data shows the reported number of apprehensions at the Southwest border hit a historic low in 2017, succeeding its previous record-low in 2011. However, in 2019 the numbers tripled. The Congressional Research Service claims that migrants have historically sought employment in the United States, but more recently, have been “increasingly fleeing harsh conditions and seeking asylum…” The right to seek asylum is guaranteed by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” Still, huge amounts of money continue to be spent on enhancing border security with additional law enforcement officers and surveillance, rather than funding the broken immigration court system.
Border security has become an industry of its own costing taxpayers billions of dollars each year. The 2021 CBP budget was over $16 billion, and this does not include ICE, the National Guard, or other ancillary enforcement agencies that provide resources to border security. In 2020, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, representing El Paso, Texas, called for Congress to ensure accountability at the border, and to “stop the militarization of our community…” The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls the widespread surveillance of people living in border towns a violation of their civil liberties, and warns against “policing-by-robot” becoming the norm.
Homeland Security is not alone in its venture towards autonomous robotic surveillance, or simply, robot dogs. The Tyndall Air Force base in Florida has been using robot dogs since 2020 for surveillance. New York City’s Police Department also deployed its own robot dog, but cancelled the program after receiving sharp criticism, leading the city government to propose legislation banning armed robots. There are additional instances, such as Singapore’s use of robot dogs during Covid-19 to enforce social distancing. Some law enforcement agencies see value in the robots for their ability to perform in situations that would otherwise be dangerous for humans. And there certainly is value. The concerns, however, are twofold: will the efforts lead to over-surveillance, and will efforts to enforce compliance eventually surpass surveillance, particularly if robo-surveillance is ever normalized?
The resistance to robot dogs in law enforcement follows a national outcry to demilitarize the police. Across the United States, police departments have used overly aggressive tactics in neighborhoods consisting mostly of minorities, and the issue erupted to the surface of mainstream American consciousness, again, following a series of police killings involving unarmed black men. Police were also heavily criticized for their aggressive reactions to subsequent protests following these deaths. Since 1997, military equipment has been finding its way into federal, state and local law enforcement through the 1033 program. The Defense Logistics Agency, which oversees the program, reports that 8,200 law enforcement agencies are currently participating in this program. Additional programs also exist to transfer equipment from the military to law enforcement. Police militarization is more likely to occur in minority neighborhoods, so it’s not a complete surprise the NYPD’s first use of its robot dog occurred in the Bronx.
There are concerns that robots used for surveillance today could easily be armed for battle tomorrow. Ghost Robotics, the company currently contracting the robot dog technology to the Department of Homeland Security, unveiled a new prototype of its robot dog armed with a sniper rifle. The company’s Chief Product Officer wrote, “Weaponizing the robot dogs is something that we’re not doing ourselves, the robot is really a platform. And so from our perspective, that’s really a decision that the government is making… And, the robot is not an autonomous system that is making any life or death, any critical decisions, on their own.” In the public statement released by Homeland Security, robot dogs were compared to semi-autonomous drones that are commonly used elsewhere. The agency focused on surveillance as the purpose of robot dogs, but did not explicitly mention arming, or not arming, the dogs. The use of semi-autonomous drones as military weapons is well known. However, while there have not been many instances of totally autonomous weapons being used in battle, there are reports of foreign powers launching missiles from autonomous drones in Libya and Azerbaijan.
In 2019, diplomats gathered at the United Nations to deliberate about a ban on lethal autonomous weapons, or killer robots, but left without a final resolution. There have been calls made by international organizations to regulate autonomous weapons, but so far, efforts have fallen short.
Even without being used as weapons, autonomous and semi-autonomous robots with surveillance missions, like robot dogs at the border, pose significant human rights concerns, such as those described in Articles 7–11 and 14 of the UDHR. Robots are capable of collecting enormous amounts of data and metadata from law-abiding people who would not volunteer the information. This data, including visual, auditory, location, and personally identifiable information, could end up being reviewed not only by government officials, but robot manufacturers as well. The ownership, custody, and transfer of that data can be problematic from the standpoint of criminal procedure, data privacy and due process in criminal investigations. More details on the intersection between privacy rights and criminal proceedings can be found in CIHR’s recent white papers Part 1 and Part 2.
