ROBOTLARIN KAMU GÜVENLİĞİNDE KULLANIMI: MEKÂNSAL BİR SINIFLANDIRMA

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, robot teknolojisinin 21. Yüzyıl’da mekânsal bağlamda kamu güvenliğine etkilerini anlamak üzere analitik bir çerçeve oluşturmaktır. Teknolojik gelişmelerle erişilen insan üstü yeteneklerin incelenmesinin ötesinde, bu analizde robotların kullanımının kamu politikası aktörlerine etkilerinin çoklu akımlar kuramı ile dengeli bir tartışma içerisinde değerlendirilmesine gayret gösterilmiştir. Çalışmada ‘kamu güvenliğinde robot teknolojisinin meşruiyeti tartışmaları mekândan etkilenmekte midir?’ sorusu araştırılmıştır. Otonominin kamu güvenliğindeki rolünün kapsamını, robotların aynı ekosistemdeki insanların sorumlulukları ile insan haklarına etkileri, robot kullanımının mekânsal farklılıkları ile robot karşıtı tartışmalar oluşturmaktadır. Bu minvalde, tam-otonom ve yarı-otonom robot kullanımının yasal, etik ve toplumsal etkileri tartışılmıştır. Sonrasında robotların kamu güvenliğinde kullanımında tartışmaların yoğunlaştığı sorunlu alanlar anlamlı ve açık bir hale getirilmiştir. Tartışmaların mekâna göre farklılaşması ve tam-otonom robotların kamu politikalarında büyük değişimlerin habercisi olması ‘otonominin mekânsallığı’ yaklaşımını beraberinde getirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robot
• Otonomi
• Teknoloji
• Kamu güvenliği
• Etik

THE USE OF ROBOTS IN PUBLIC SAFETY: A SPATIAL TAXONOMY

Öz

The aim of this study is to constitute an analytical framework to comprehend the effects of robot technology on public safety in the spatial context of the 21st century. Beyond examining the superhuman abilities achieved through technological developments, in this analysis, an effort has been made to evaluate the effects of the usage of robots on public policy actors with multiple streams theory in a balanced discussion. In the study, the research question has been ‘Is the discussion of the legitimacy of robot technology in public safety affected by space?’. The scope of the role of autonomy in public safety, the responsibilities of robots towards people in the same ecosystem and their effects on human rights, the spatial differences of robot usage, and anti-robot debates. The legal, ethical, and social implications of using fully autonomous and semi-autonomous robots have been discussed in this context. Afterward, the problematic areas in which the discussions are concentrated on the use of robots in public safety have been made meaningful and clear. The diversification of the debates in association with the spatial and the fact that fully autonomous robots herald major changes in public policies bring the 'spatiality of autonomy' approach with it.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robot
• Autonomy
• Technology
• Public Safety
• Ethics

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, H. M. ve Essa, H. S. (2021). Survey of an intelligent surveillance system for monitoring international border security, 1-9. Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.550
2. Anderson, K. ve Waxman, M. C. (2013). Law and ethics for autonomous weapon systems: Why a ban won't work and how the laws of war can. Jean Perkins Task Force on National Security and Law Essay Series, Hoover Institution and Stanford University.
3. Antebi, L. (2013). Who Will Stop the Robots? Military and Strategic Affairs, 5(2), 61-77.
4. Arkin, R. C. ve Moshkina, L. (2007, 1-2 June 2007). Lethality and Autonomous Robots: An Ethical Stance. The 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society sempozyumunda sunulmuştur.
5. Arntz, M., Gregory, T. ve Zierahn, U. (2016). The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en
6. Asaro, P. (2016). "Hands up, don't shoot!" HRI and the automation of police use of force. Journal of human-robot interaction, 5(3), 55-69.
7. Ashrafian, H. (2015). AIonAI: A Humanitarian Law of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 29-40. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9513-9
8. Asimov, I. (1950). The evitable conflict. Astounding Science Fiction, 45(4), 48-68.

9. Bigo, D. (2014). The (in) securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: Military/Navy–border guards/police–database analysts. Security Dialogue, 45(3), 209-225.
10. Brollowski, H. (2013). Military robots and the principle of humanity: Distorting the human face of the law? M. Matthee, B. Toebes ve M. Brus (Eds.), Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Avril McDonald (s. 53-96). The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press.
11. Calcara, A. (2022). Contractors or robots? Future warfare between privatization and automation. Small Wars ve Insurgencies, 33(1-2), 250-271.
12. Champbell, C. (2016). China has launched the robocops you have been waiting for. Time. https://time.com/4307492/china-public-security-anbot-dalek-robot-robocop/ adresinden alınmıştır.
13. Chen, B., Marvin, S. ve While, A. (2020). Containing COVID-19 in China: AI and the robotic restructuring of future cities. Dialogues in Human Geography, 10(2), 238-241. doi:10.1177/2043820620934267
14. Chui, M., Manyika, J. ve Miremadi, M. (2016, 08.07.2016). Where machines could replace humans-and where they can’t (yet). https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/where-machines-could-replace-humans-and-where-they-cant-yet adresinden alınmıştır.
15. Csernatoni, R. (2018). Constructing the EU’s high-tech borders: FRONTEX and dual-use drones for border management. European Security, 27(2), 175-200. doi:10.1080/09662839.2018.1481396
16. Davitti, D. (2019). The rise of private military and security companies in European Union migration policies: Implications under the UNGPs. Business and Human Rights Journal, 4(1), 33-53.
17. Dechesne, F., Dignum, V., Zardiashvili, L. ve Bieger, J. (2019). AI ve Ethics at the Police: Towards Responsible use of Artificial Intelligence in the Dutch Police. Araştırma Raporu: Institute for the Interdisciplinary Study of the Law.
18. Gentilini, U., Grosh, M., Rigolini, J. ve Yemtsov, R. (2019). Exploring universal basic income: A guide to navigating concepts, evidence, and practices. World Bank Publications.
19. Hanna, R. ve Olken, B. A. (2018). Universal basic incomes versus targeted transfers: Anti-poverty programs in developing countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(4), 201-226. doi:10.1257/jep.32.4.201
20. Hartzog, W. C., Gregory Nelson, John Shay, Lisa A. (2015). Inefficiently automated law enforcement. Mich. St. L. Rev., 2015, 1763.
21. Heyns, C. (2016). Human rights and the use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) during domestic law enforcement. Hum. Rts. Q., 38, 350.
22. Howard, M. W. (2018). Universal basic income: policy options at national, state, and local levels. Maine policy review, 27(2), 38-42.
23. Jeandesboz, J. (2016). Smartening border security in the European Union: An associational inquiry. Security Dialogue, 47(4), 292-309.
24. Joh, E. E. (2016). Policing Police Robots Pulse Symposium. UCLA L. Rev. Discourse, 64, 516.
25. Kaplan, Z. A. (2018). R2d2 or irobot: Can armed robots be a friend to police without being a foe to the public. Notre Dame JL Ethics ve Pub. Pol'y, 32, 603.
26. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984.
27. Koops, B. J., Di Carlo, A., Nocco, L., Casamassima, V. ve Stradella, E. (2013). Robotic technologies and fundamental rights: Robotics challenging the European constitutional framework. International Journal of Technoethics, 4(2), 15-35.
28. Kostavelis, I. ve Gasteratos, A. (2017, 2017//). Robots in Crisis Management: A Survey. The Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management in Mediterranean Countries, Cham. kongresinde sunulmuştur.
29. Lin, J. ve Singer, P. W. (2016, July 23, 2020). China debuts anbot, the police robot. Popular science. https://www.popsci.com/china-debuts-anbot-police-robot/ adresinden alınmıştır.
30. Lin, P., Abney, K. ve Bekey, G. A. (2014). Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics: MIT press.
31. Liu, H.Y. ve Zawieska, K. (2020). From responsible robotics towards a human rights regime oriented to the challenges of robotics and artificial intelligence. Ethics and Information Technology, 22(4), 321-333.
32. Loukinas, P. (2022). Drones for border surveillance: Multipurpose use, uncertainty, and challenges at EU borders. Geopolitics, 27(1), 89-112. doi:10.1080/14650045.2021.1929182
33. Marcuse, H. (2013). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society: Routledge.
34. Marin, L. (2017). The ‘metamorphosis’ of the drone: The governance challenges of drone technology and border surveillance. D. M. Bowman, E. Stokes ve A. Rip, Embedding new technologies into society (s. 299-333): Jenny Stanford Publishing.
35. Marin, L. ve Krajčíková, K. (2016). Deploying drones in policing southern European borders: constraints and challenges for data protection and human rights. A. Zavrsnik (Ed.), Drones and Unmanned Aerial Systems (s. 101-127): Springer.
36. Martins, B. O. ve Jumbert, M. G. (2022). EU Border technologies and the co-production of security ‘problems’ and ‘solutions’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(6), 1430-1447.
37. McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man: MIT press.
38. Meijer, A. (2011). Migration and the New Technological Borders of Europe. Londra: Palgrave Macmillan.
39. Milivojevic, S. (2013). Borders, technology and (im) mobility:‘Cyber-Fortress Europe’ and its emerging Southeast frontier. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 19(3), 101-123.
40. Murphy, R. ve Woods, D. D. (2009). Beyond Asimov: The three laws of responsible robotics. IEEE intelligent systems, 24(4), 14-20.
41. Neocleous, M. (2013). Air power as police power. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31(4), 578-593.
42. Operto, F. (2011). Ethics in Advanced Robotics. IEEE Robotics ve Automation Magazine, 18(1), 72-78. doi:10.1109/MRA.2010.940155
43. Parodi, I. (2021). Autonomous Weapon Systems and Ethical Issues. A Focus on Targeted Killings. Student Papers: University of Bologna.
44. Paul, I. (2022, 06.07.2022). Grijalva urges 'transparency' from CBP after surveillance blimp is lofted over Nogales. Tucson Sentinel. https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/070622_grijalva_blimp_letter/grijalva-urges-transparency-from-cbp-after-surveillance-blimp-lofted-over-nogales/ adresinden alınmıştır.
45. Pedrozo, S. (2017). Swiss military drones and the border space: a critical study of the surveillance exercised by border guards. Geographica Helvetica, 72(1), 97-107.
46. Sharkey, N. (2012). The evitability of autonomous robot warfare. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 787-799. doi:10.1017/S1816383112000732
47. Sharkey, N. (2017). Why robots should not be delegated with the decision to kill. Connection Science, 29(2), 177-186. doi:10.1080/09540091.2017.1310183
48. Shay, L. A., Hartzog, W., Nelson, J., Larkin, D. ve Conti, G. (2016). Robot Law. Chapter 10: Confronting automated law enforcement: Edward Elgar Publishing.
49. Shoichet, C. E. (2022). Robot dogs could patrol the US-Mexico border. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/19/us/robot-dogs-us-mexico-border-patrol-cec/index.html adresinden alınmıştır.
50. Sparrow, R. (2016). Robots and Respect: Assessing the Case Against Autonomous Weapon Systems. Ethics and International Affairs, 30(1), 93-116. doi:10.1017/S0892679415000647
51. Szocik, K. ve Abylkasymova, R. (2021). Ethical Issues in Police Robots. The Case of Crowd Control Robots in a Pandemic. Journal of Applied Security Research, 1-16. doi:10.1080/19361610.2021.1923365
52. Theodoulou, S. Z. ve Cahn, M. A. (1995). Public policy: The essential readings. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
53. Umbrello, S., Torres, P. ve De Bellis, A. F. (2020). The future of war: Could lethal autonomous weapons make conflict more ethical? AI ve SOCIETY, 35(1), 273-282. doi:10.1007/s00146-019-00879-x
54. Veruggio, G. (2006, 4-6 Dec. 2006). The EURON Roboethics Roadmap. The 2006 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots konferansında sunulmuştur.
55. Westall, S. (2017). Robocop joins Dubai police to fight real life crime. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-robocop-idUSKBN18S4K8 adresinden alınmıştır.
56. Winnefeld, J. A. ve Kendall, F. (2011). Unmanned systems integrated roadmap FY 2011-2036. US Department of Defense.
57. Yüksekbilgili, Z. ve Çevik, G. Z. (2018). Endüstri 4.0 bağlamında Türkiye’nin yerine ilişkin güncel ve gelecek eksenli bir analiz. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(2), 422-436.
58. Zardiashvili, L. ve Fosch-Villaronga, E. (2020). “Oh, Dignity too?” said the Robot: Human dignity as the basis for the governance of robotics. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 121-143. doi:10.1007/s11023-019-09514-6
59. Zhang, T., Li, Q., Zhang, C.-s., Liang, H.-w., Li, P., Wang, T.-m., . . . Wu, C. (2017). Current trends in the development of intelligent unmanned autonomous systems. Frontiers of information technology ve electronic engineering, 18(1), 68-85.