A new report claims the Los Angeles Police Department is using delivery robots to find out a lot more than what you ordered for dinner.
According to 404Media, Serve Robotics, the company behind these robots, has reportedly been sharing video footage with the LAPD for criminal investigations.
Documents secured by 404Media reveal that during an event where two individuals tried to steal a Serve Robotics delivery robot, the LAPD obtained a subpoena to access the robot’s camera footage. This footage was instrumental in identifying and subsequently apprehending the suspects. Additional internal communications indicate that Serve was quite cooperative in assisting the police with the investigation.
When 404Media inquired with the LAPD about the potential use of footage from other robots in similar cases, the department stated they were unaware of any other instances where robot footage was used for criminal investigations. The LAPD further commented, “The incident was categorized as Grand Theft. We are not aware of similar incidents involving these robots,” but declined to elaborate on their relationship with Serve Robotics.
In a follow-up, 404Media questioned Serve Robotics about their data collection and retention policies, especially concerning the recording of Los Angeles residents. Serve responded that their privacy policy ensures that “camera feeds from the robots are routinely deleted, unless there are compelling safety or security reasons to retain them.”
Despite claims from both the LAPD and Serve that the theft attempt was an isolated incident, other emails suggest that Serve has previously offered camera footage to the LAPD. One such email from Serve’s Head of Public Policy, Vignesh Ganapathy, informed an LAPD sergeant that they had footage of a car “deliberately ramming into one of our robots multiple times, trapping it in a Sprouts parking lot,” and willingly offered this footage to the police.
Further emails reveal discussions between Serve and the LAPD about forming a partnership to tackle vandalism targeting the company’s robots.
Apparently the pearl clutchers in these comments have never heard of the Patriot Act. And are very unaware that the left is just complicit in its continuation as the right.
Patriot Act was the beginning of the end of Constitutional liberties.
Time to review Orwell’s book, “1984.”
The rule of thumb with surveillance tech is: if the State can abuse it, it will. Don’t dismiss these devices just because they installed some cute blinking LED eyes. And definitely don’t expect transparency based on what a company rep says about their privacy policy. Private companies routinely & proactively give over data to law enforcement and three letter agencies without subpoena; it’s built into the architecture of most of the comms tech we use (like the phone I’m typing this on) and home devices. No longer relegated to our personal devices or stationary red light cams, now the tools… Read more »
Yep. A tragic mistake for Los Angeles and West Hollywood.
The tools of surveillance? Lol. Why is this so troubling for you? Did you want to commit a crime on the street and get away with it?
So the controversy is…. the company wants those responsible for vandalism of their property caught?
Wow, how dare they!
No, Mr Abrams; the controversy is unwarranted surveillance.
Very interesting. The company has every right to use cameras on their robotic property in public places, no different than the average person using their phone camera in public.
Corporations are people?
According to our right wing, er… “conservative” Supreme Court, corporations are indeed “people” with corresponding rights. (Which makes the whole Disney / DeSantis situation hilarious …. Of course fascists don’t believe in individual rights, so that’s DeSantis’s take ….).
Silly question. First, corporations are made up of people. Second, I guess you aren’t familiar with the US Supreme Court’s decision years ago to give corporations rights conferred to individuals. So, yes, if corporations can have free speech rights, then they can record you vandalizing their property. Your takeaway? Don’t commit a crime on the street. Go vandalize your own stuff at home.
Of course it was a silly question.
Except that aspect of Citizen’s United was pushed by the court, not the litigants.
People like me have been warning about the steadily encroaching dystopian surveillance state for years, while the sheep line up to buy groceries with their fingerprints and maim their kids with poison mRNA boosters. Your neighborhood “conspiracy theorists” are getting tired.
Oh look, the right-wing anti-vaxx terf is here to pretend like he cares about the police slowly infringing on civil liberties.
Again, I compel you to investigate my work for yourself. I have spoken out against this type of thing for years at City Council (I assume you attend), and organized public forums in town with local groups.
I do hope you are not willfully attempting to misrepresent my values within these community comment sections. We likely share many values in common.
http://www.instagram.com/freeweho
I disagree with you on this, GeG.
You report the footage handed over was related to vandalism of the robots and not general surveillance. (despite the headline)
thank you, exactly.
Whatever tool they need to catch the bad guys.
Dangerous attitude.
Only to criminals.
If these little bastards are gonna spy on us, can we at least give them tasers to shock people who don’t pick up their dog’s poop?
This sounds like it’ll be even better than RoboCop! Eye roll. Then again, I am more confident with malfunctioning robots than I am with that ambassador nonsense.