POLICING PROJECT, FORMER ETHICS BOARD MEMBERS, RELEASE REPORT ON AXON ENTERPRISE’S PROPOSAL FOR TASER-EQUIPPED DRONES; EXPRESS CONCERNS OVER POTENTIAL MISUSE

Nine former members of Axon’s AI Ethics Board today released a report detailing their concerns with the company’s development of Taser-equipped drone technology

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 24, 2023

Media Contact: Joshua Manson, Policing Project at NYU School of Law, 914-357-0000, joshua.manson@nyu.edu

NEW YORK, NY — The Policing Project at New York University School of Law, in collaboration with former members of Axon Enterprise’s independent AI Ethics Board, today released a report on Project ION, the company’s proposed Taser weapon for drones and other robots.

In 2021, Axon informed its Ethics Board of the Project ION proposal. The Policing Project staffed the Ethics Board, which was chaired by faculty director Barry Friedman. After extensive deliberations, in May 2022, the Ethics Board voted against Axon proceeding with the technology.

“Drones and robots have profound potential to transform public safety, for good or ill,” said Friedman, the co-founder of the Policing Project. “As Axon continues its push for weaponized drones — including at its ‘TASERCON’ event this week — it is imperative that lawmakers, vendors, and other stakeholders begin to address the real-world harms these tools may produce. To that end, we believe there is much to be learned from this report, which represents the culmination of our year-long consideration of Axon’s proposal.”

After the Board’s vote against the ION proposal, and just one week after the deadly mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, Axon announced that it was proceeding with developing ION “as part of a long-term plan to stop mass shootings.” The Ethics Board, however, never was asked to consider such a use for the technology. In response to Axon’s announcement, nine of the Board’s twelve members resigned.

This report, authored by the resigning members of Axon’s Ethics Board and the Policing Project, sets forth for the first time the Board’s reasoning behind its vote against the ION proposal. Specifically, it lays out new details about the pilot program considered by the Ethics Board, including a range of safeguards that the Board developed to address its concerns about the technology. These safeguards included that Axon never release a drone with an autonomous weapon and that it require policing agencies to obtain legislative authorization prior to using ION.

“It is past time for specific rules governing the use of drones and other robots by police, especially as more departments contemplate the introduction of non-lethal and even lethal force,” said Ryan Calo, a former Board member and a professor at the University of Washington School of Law. “Citizens and residents, not industry or law enforcement, should decide what sort of roles robots can play in local communities. The alternative is to sleepwalk into science fiction.”

The report also offers an inside view of the Board’s deliberations over the program. The Board took seriously the potential for ION to save lives by allowing officers to use a Taser weapon in place of traditional firearms. Yet Board members expressed grave concerns over potential harms, including the potential for misuse or abuse, the possibility that the technology might increase use of force rates, operational risks such as mechanical failures or operator error, and the disproportionate deployment of new technologies in Black, brown, and other marginalized communities.

“ION is an ambitious proposal,” said Mecole Jordan-McBride, advocacy director at the Policing Project and a former member of the Ethics Board. “Although innovation requires ambition, when lives are at risk boundaries must be pushed slowly and responsibly. Failing to do so leaves communities of color and other marginalized groups vulnerable to increased harm and violations of their civil rights.”

Finally, the report explains why the Board ultimately voted that an ION pilot program should not proceed. In particular, Board members expressed concerns about the failure of policing agencies at present to enforce policies and hold bad actors accountable, the wide variance in the capacity of policing agencies to use new technologies responsibly, and the limits of Axon’s ability to know and thoroughly vet the individuals operating ION.

“Now is not the time for weaponized drones,” said Max Isaacs, a staff attorney at the Policing Project and a co-author of the report. “Until we have better systems for accountability, transparency, and oversight around policing, weaponized drones simply have too much potential to inflict harm. We hope that Axon takes our report to heart and grounds this idea.”

###

The Policing Project at NYU School of Law promotes public safety through transparency, equity, and democratic engagement. Learn about the Policing Project at www.policingproject.org.