One day after California green-lighted a massive expansion of driverless robotaxis in San Francisco, the implications became clear. At about 11 p.m. Friday, as many as 10 Cruise driverless taxis blocked two narrow streets in the center of the city's lively North Beach bar and restaurant district. All traffic came to a standstill up Vallejo Street and around two corners on Grant. Human-driven cars sat stuck behind and in between the robotaxis, which might as well have been boulders: no one knew how to move them. The cars sat motionless with parking lights flashing for 15 minutes, then woke up and moved on, witnesses said.

Okay, let's talk about killer robots. It's a concept that long ago leapt from the pages of science fiction to reality, depending on how loose a definition you use for "robot." Military drones abandoned Asimov's First Law of Robotics -- "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" -- decades ago. The topic has been simmering again of late due to the increasing prospect of killer robots in domestic law enforcement. One of the era's best known robot makers, Boston Dynamics, raised some public policy red flags when it showcased footage of its Spot robot being deployed as part of Massachusetts State Police training exercises on our stage back in 2019.

The San Francisco Police Department is currently petitioning the city's Board of Supervisors for permission to deploy robots to kill suspects that law enforcement deems a sufficient threat that the "risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD." The draft policy, which was written by the SFPD itself, also seeks to exclude "hundreds of assault rifles from its inventory of military-style weapons and for not include personnel costs in the price of its weapons," according to a report from Mission Local. As Mission Local notes, this proposal has already seen significant opposition from both within and without the Board. Supervisor Aaron Peskin, initially pushed back against the use of force requirements, inserting "Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person," into the policy language. The SFPD removed that wording in a subsequent draft, which I as a lifelong San Francisco resident did not know was something that they could just do.

Facial recognition technology is everywhere you look -- from unlocking phones to shaming jaywalkers. But should corporations have the power to use it on you without consent? That's the question the city of San Francisco is tackling right now. A member of the city's Board of Supervisors proposed a ban on facial recognition technology for city agencies on Tuesday, Wired reports -- potentially forcing tech companies to justify the use of surveillance tools. San Francisco city board member Aaron Peskin is calling for an approval process for any new surveillance technology purchases by city agencies such as license plate readers, CCTV, and gun-detection systems. "I have yet to be persuaded that there is any beneficial use of this technology that outweighs the potential for government actors to use it for coercive and oppressive ends," Peskin told Wired.

If a local tech industry critic has his way, San Francisco could become the first US city to ban its agencies from using facial recognition technology. Aaron Peskin, a member of the city's Board of Supervisors, proposed the ban Tuesday as part of a suite of rules to enhance surveillance oversight. In addition to the ban on facial recognition technology, the ordinance would require city agencies to gain the board's approval before buying new surveillance technology, putting the burden on city agencies to publicly explain why they want the tools as well as the potential harms. It would also require an audit of any existing surveillance tech--things like gunshot-detection systems, surveillance cameras, or automatic license plate readers--in use by the city; officials would have to report annually on how the technology was used, community complaints, and with whom they share the data. Those rules would follow similar ordinances passed in nearby Oakland and Santa Clara County.