Serve Robotics, which delivers food for Uber Eats, provided footage filmed by at least one of its robots to the LAPD as evidence in a criminal case. The emails show the robots, which are a constant sight in the city, can be used for surveillance.

Serve Robotics, which delivers food for Uber Eats, provided footage filmed by at least one of its robots to the LAPD as evidence in a criminal case. The emails show the robots, which are a constant sight in the city, can be used for surveillance.

A food delivery robot company that delivers for Uber Eats in Los Angeles provided video filmed by one of its robots to the Los Angeles Police Department as part of a criminal investigation, 404 Media has learned. The incident highlights the fact that delivery robots that are being deployed to sidewalks all around the country are essentially always filming, and that their footage can and has been used as evidence in criminal trials. Emails obtained by 404 Media also show that the robot food delivery company wanted to work more closely with the LAPD, which jumped at the opportunity.

The specific incident in question was a grand larceny case where two men tried (and failed) to steal a robot owned and operated by Serve Robotics, which ultimately wants to deploy “up to 2,000 robots” to deliver food for UberEats in Los Angeles. The suspects were arrested and convicted.

read more: https://www.404media.co/serve-food-delivery-robots-are-feeding-camera-footage-to-the-lapd-internal-emails-show/

archive: https://archive.ph/997sA

  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
    39·
    1 year ago

    So someone tried to steal one of the robots, and the robot company was keen to give the footage to the cops?

    There’s a lot of potential for fuckery here, but dishonestly spinning this non-issue to look like some kind of crisis distracts from real problems with privacy and the police. Hack “journalists”.

    • Rozz@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      19·
      1 year ago

      This specific case is like saying someone tried to steal your car that had a dash cam in it and you agreed to send the footage to the police.

    • UnlimitedRumination [he/him]@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Yeah they really buried some critical information on this one. I get the point of the article about general surveillance but when people feel tricked they get burned out on the issue and trust the media less. They could have made the point they wanted without making it clickbait.

  • Chris@feddit.ukEnglish
    211·
    1 year ago

    Somebody tried to steal a robot and was surprised that video footage from the robot was used as evidence?

    • Hathaway@lemmy.zipEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Well, I don’t think that’s the profound bit, more, that, you have an army of video surveillance robots. The time you are walking down the street being recorded is only ever increasing. Granted, every official is going to come at it from the “reduced crime” stat, which, surveillance does combat, but, it’s a slippery slope.

      If they had cause, I’m sure the majority of my private conversations, and where I’ve been have all been recorded and could be used against me in court. Am I a criminal? No. I’m not “scared” of it necessarily. I don’t think it’s ethical though.

      • Chris@feddit.ukEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        The issue is that if a crime is committed then the police will be interested in gathering any video footage they can get their hands on (I’ve had it at work where I’ve been asked for CCTV footage from cameras that may have had an outside chance of capturing something important). If a company is sending robots out with cameras on them, and they are recording footage, then that footage is going to be requested (whether the company admits to working with the police or not).

        Should there be this many cameras watching our every move? Probably not, but as the cameras are there, they are going to be used, and people should expect to be recorded - especially if they are committing a crime.

        • Hathaway@lemmy.zipEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          I agree. And I most definitely understand, you don’t have, not should you expect a right to privacy the second you leave your front door. (Arguably before that too, but that’s neither here nor there.)

          I think what bothers me most is, I don’t want, let’s say my walking pattern in a city, monitored(it already is) to then have some camera see that I’m having a “bad day” then in inundated with ads that, “based on my profile, x emotion shows I’ll spend money here.” Idk. It just feels very dystopian, if that reasoning makes sense. Though, it’s sorta like climate change, it’s inevitable and the individual is essentially powerless.

  • itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com
    31·
    1 year ago

    I guess the Internet of things just became the Internet of mobile surveillance cameras.

    Is timeline as quickly becoming very dystopian.

    Where can I get one of those face scrambling masks from A Scanner Darkly?