Legitimate Knightscope Robot Use Case? “Significant Decrease” In Graffiti, Car Break-Ins And The Number Of Encampments Around Their Parking Lot

JH
John Honovich
Nov 30, 2017
IPVM

Knightscope robots have started to be used at a San Francisco animal shelter, and the shelter's spokesperson is claiming clear benefits:

“significant decrease” in graffiti, car break-ins and the number of encampments around their parking lot.

While most locations lack the crime and general craziness of San Francisco, for facilities with those types of issues, it could be useful, more so than just fixed cameras. 

On the other hand, I am curious how long one until one of the locals attacks the robot, given its effective intrusion into their neighborhood.

Finally, a video from a person passing by that was not too happy about the robot:

What do you think? Upside for Knightscope?

Avatar
Rob Hammond
Nov 30, 2017
IPVMU Certified

In San Francisco, the homeless seem to be a protected class.  Anyone who has worked or lived there is familiar with the filth and defecations the homeless leave behind, and how the city officials are seeming powerless to address the issue.  So it won't be long before the robots are outlawed for invading the privacy of the homeless!

(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Nov 30, 2017

Downtown Portland is much the same re: the homeless.

It does seem like the active presence of the robot could dissuade at least some of the less persistent criminals vs the entirely passive CCTV recording. I wonder if there's a Christmas mode that could add some red and green to all those blue LED's.

(3)
U
Undisclosed #2
Dec 04, 2017
IPVMU Certified

I wonder if there's a Christmas mode that could add some red and green to all those blue LED's.

William “Santa” Li has got it covered:

 

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Nov 30, 2017
IPVMU Certified

I am curious how long until one of the locals attack the robot...

(7)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #3
Dec 01, 2017

I'm curious how defensible/hardened these units are versus one guy with a ski mask and a crowbar. If I were intent on committing crime an unarmed unmanned mobile camera would be my first target, not a point of dissuasion.

U
Undisclosed #2
Dec 01, 2017
IPVMU Certified

If I were intent on committing crime an unarmed unmanned mobile camera would be my first target...

What if there was no robot but only an unarmed security guard.  Would he be your first target?  

If not, would it be to avoid committing the far more serious crime of assault, or because you feel you would have an easier time attacking a robot with a crowbar than attacking a guard with a crowbar?

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #3
Dec 01, 2017

Since I am not criminally inclined I can only answer your questions in the hypothetical, but assault as you point out is a far more serious crime than vandalism or mischief. I would be far more dissuaded by the presence of a person than a robot, especially if I knew the robot had no capability to defend itself except sound an alarm.

Hell, I'd probably push it over for fun and claim it bumped into me. In fact I guarantee you're going to see a lot of videos to that effect, dumb kids antagonizing and interfering with the equally dumb robot till a human comes along and tells them to get lost...

(1)
(1)
JH
John Honovich
Dec 01, 2017
IPVM

I'm curious how defensible/hardened these units are

Having seen them up close, I don't think are that hard to tip over. In fairness, without really increasing the cost and reducing its functionality, I am not sure how it could be sufficiently hardened enough.

There already was a case of this: A Marketing Home Run For Knightscope - Man Attacks Robot

If their usage expands, I am sure it will happen fairly often. Unlike a biometric reader or a camera, a robot goes out towards people, which is inevitably going to cause some to attack it, especially if they are drunk, angry, hardened criminals, etc.

(1)
UE
Undisclosed End User #4
Dec 01, 2017

I wonder if the SPCA is paying for this thing or if it's pure marketing to lure investors.

JH
John Honovich
Dec 01, 2017
IPVM

paying for this thing

This article implies they are not paying:

Whether or not the bot graduates from pilot program and becomes a permanent fixture will be determined by the number of reported crimes in the period before and after its deployment

 

JH
John Honovich
Dec 13, 2017
IPVM

Ok, on the other hand, Knightscope is starting to get some bad press/pushback on this, e.g.:

Avatar
Brandon Knutson
Dec 13, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Wow Erin Brodwin. Even more shameful is when a property owner's right to protect their property is publicly shamed.  

(3)
(1)
JH
John Honovich
Dec 13, 2017
IPVM

Brandon, I think the challenge is that a big part of an animal shelter's brand is compassion, so that type of criticism can be painful. Certainly, they have a right to do with their property but they also have a brand to consider.

Avatar
Brandon Knutson
Dec 13, 2017
IPVMU Certified

I get it John, but too much homeless activity in the area has probably reduced the number of visitors to the shelter, or at least made visitors feel unsafe. This would lessen their primary mission of re-homing domestic animals. I doubt the City was supporting their need to keep the sidewalks free of homeless encampments. I'm only guessing on that based on the fact the City is fining them for operating the robot on the sidewalks without a permit. 

Be it most likely free, the SPCA definitely picked the wrong security solution and Knightscope once again got their name in the paper.

(1)
JH
John Honovich
Dec 13, 2017
IPVM

Be it most likely free, the SPCA definitely picked the wrong security solution and Knightscope once again got their name in the paper.

Agreed but I do wonder is this type of publicity good for Knightscope?

My thinking is this: If I am security manager, I am going to start worrying that if I use Knightscope or other security robots, am I going to draw controversy to my company? I would imagine most security managers don't want to drag their company into some public debate / social media flame war? What do you think?

(1)
Avatar
Brandon Knutson
Dec 13, 2017
IPVMU Certified

I do wonder is this type of publicity good for Knightscope?

I think any exposure has been good for Knightscope. How else would most non-security staff be familiar with Knightscope? Their robots don't exactly have a crime-fighting record, but they are cool.

Personally, I think people are embracing these robots because they aren't humans (humans with badges can be racists, meanies, use selective enforcement, etc) and did I mention these robots are cool? Awe... cute too, even when they run over toddlers and commit suicide.

I would imagine most security managers don't want to drag their company into some public debate / social media flame war?

Security managers are often charged with protection of brand reputation and would avoid the negative attention the SPCA is getting. A robot indoors at the SPCA dispensing dog treats and repetitively asking "who's a good dog?" that also had some real patrol responsibilities might be acceptable to a real security manager, I doubt the SPCA has one.

Putting this Knightscope outside at the SPCA was bad idea, vandalism to the robot, "big brother front and center!," right-of-way code violations, hits to the SPCA brand reputation and it offers little, if any, security value.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Dec 13, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Even more shameful is when a property owner's right to protect their property is publicly shamed.

No matter what they can always “Release the hounds!” ;)

(1)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #3
Dec 13, 2017

It's the People's Communist Alt Left Republic of California, what do you expect?

(2)
(1)
New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions