San Francisco is in the midst of one of the most complex gentrification processes seen in recent years. That has led to a homelessness crisis, which is inevitably linked to a rise in crime. Instead of searching for a real solution alongside the authorities, some companies and organizations decided to implement their own strategy to keep the homeless away, as was the case of the local SPCA, which deployed a Knightscope robot with the intention of "patrolling" the area.
A History of Fighting Homelessness
In mid-2014, the multinational Tesco was embroiled in a scandal caused by a series of "anti-homeless spikes" installed outside one of its stores in the city of London. The company yielded to public pressure, but obviously the main conflict didn't disappear. It is estimated that 8,000 people sleep on the streets of London each year, invisible until something like the Tesco incident happens. Across the pond, in bright, tech-savvy San Francisco, the latest statistics put the number at 7,500 homeless. Their situation is much worse considering that San Francisco has a tenth of London's population, and instead of using spikes in front of stores, some decided to activate robots...
The Robot Guard
The news exploded in the first weeks of December, but it still makes noise. The San Francisco division of the SPCA deployed a Knightscope robot to patrol the area near its facilities, in an attempt to "deter" the homeless, and reduce incidents like the appearance of needles, or damage to vehicles. Technically, the Knightscope has no ability to use force (whether lethal or non-lethal), but it comes equipped with four cameras, moves at a maximum speed of 4.8 kilometers per hour, and is cheaper than a real security guard, with a fixed rental of six dollars per hour. The SPCA reported that in its first week of "work", the robot was covered with a tarp, hit, knocked down, attacked with sauce (to cover its sensors), and according to some people on Twitter... with feces.
The Law Strikes Back
As expected, Knightscope defended the presence of its robot, recalled that the SPCA has the right to protect its properties, employees and visitors, and that problems in the area decreased. However, any deep debate on the matter was frozen by a new local law that drastically restricts the use of robots on public streets. In fact, the SPCA had to remove the Knightscope, because otherwise it risked paying a fine of $1,000 per day. Will it continue...?
