Tasers aren't bullets. The narrative on tasers has long-shifted to it being preferred over deadly force. Tasers promote the elimination of police bullets.
Nonsense. The line is between "armed" and "not armed." It's much easier to justify adding lethal capability to something that already has the ability to subdue people (and kill them accidentally) than it to justify arming something that is completely unarmed.
Tasers absolutely do not reduce police shootings. In fact, they increase police violence. Instead they’re used — frequently in violation of official police policy — as compliance devices. In other words, if you’re found guilty of contempt of cop, you ride the lightning.
The problem with cops aren’t the tools. The problem with cops are the cops.
The article, the people on SF board, and everybody else seems to confuse remote-controlled devices with AI-powered ones. To me the difference is essential: why I might agree to remote controlled devices carrying out the operator orders (I might), I definitely am very very, but very very very far from trusting an AI with carrying a weapon (I already don't trust humans that much).
I'm of the firm belief that if you want to inflict violence on someone there should be physical risk for those that want to inflict the violence. So that's a no to any kind of remote controlled murderbots.
Usually people protecting the public from violence don't really want to commit the violence themselves. they probably wish they were having a boring normal old day instead of needing to confront an active shooter.
So do you think the police were being lame by taking out Micah Xavier Johnson with a remote controlled vehicle, rather than breaching his position personally?
I'm sure that is often the case, and often not the case, judging by the glorification of violence and killing common with police today.
It's important to differentiate being brave enough to put yourself in harm's way vs. glorifying violence. Policing requires the first one, not the second. Unfortunately, while the latter is seen often in officers, Uvalde showed us that the former may not be.
and speaking for myself, yes, very much so, that domestic drone killing was a dark day for the country and a harbinger of things to come
So it would be better for, say, another 5 cops to be killed trying to breach his hideout, rather than blowing him up with a robot - after he has already killed 5 cops and injured many more?
yes, 100%, it's better for cops to be brave and risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary (e.g. Uvalde, Micah), like they signed up to do
given that Micah was cornered, they could have also waited, perhaps even negotiated (they did, after all, trick him by saying their suicide drone was actually carrying a phone to negotiate), but neither of those options makes a big cool boom or sates bloodlust
anyways, any bully can pick up a gun and boss around non-threats while being paid handsomely and enjoying legal immunity for nearly anything they do
it is far better for cops to do their jobs, even if they're scared, even if they die, than to set a precedent of extrajudicial domestic drone killing of suspects. that's why they get paid more than burger flippers.
I honestly can't understand the opposite logic: that precedent is horrible
> risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary
It wasn't necessary, because they had an alternative way to accomplish the goal.
> like they signed up to do
Cops don't sign up to risk their lives. They sign up to help police their community. They are sometimes called upon to risk their lives, but that doesn't mean they should risk their lives when alternatives are available.
It's not an extrajudicial killing if the dude is actively murdering people from a window. Police, or really any random person, are well with the rule of law to kill that person without getting the okay from a judge.
> It wasn't necessary, because they had an alternative way to accomplish the goal
having an alternative way to accomplish the goal is not good enough if the result is the precedent set of extrajudicial drone killings of suspects by police
put simply, the ends don't justify the means
> Cops don't sign up to risk their lives
yes, they do. It's part of the job, and part of why they get paid so much, and part of why they expect to be viewed as heroes, despite the litany of lower-paid, more-dangerous professions which are not
you don't sign up for the secret service if you won't jump in front of a bullet for the president, and you don't sign up for the police if you won't jump in front of a bullet for a child in a school shooting (hence why the Uvalde police have been shamed)
> It's not an extrajudicial killing if the dude is actively murdering people from a window.
he was cornered, unable to shoot anybody, as was previously mentioned, when the police sent their suicide bomber bot in, so yes, extrajudicial killing.
was it because the police liked explosions? was it because they wanted blood for someone who killed another officer? was it because they were too lazy to negotiate? was it because they were too impatient to besiege him? was it because they were too cowardly to confront him? ultimately it doesn't matter, it was an extrajudicial killing, and a terrible precedent
I'd rather the US would impose gun control & prioritize mental healthcare. But since the US seems to have decided that guns are toys that everyone should own, part of the consequences is getting shot by people with guns.
I would prefer in the people "protecting the public from violence" didn't get seminars called Killology where they talk about how good the sex is after you shoot someone.
Much of military technology is the art of maximizing damage potential while minimizing harm risk. This has been true from the era of mounted cavalry to remote operated drones.
And now we are confusing army with police. I am fully aware that in the States the police gets more and more weaponized but still, I'm a firm believer they should not be the same.
Drone as first responder makes a tremendous amount of sense -- Police already use helicopters, which are exceptionally expensive, limited in coverage capability, and have disastrous consequences when they crash.
But there are huge benefits of 'eyes in the sky' during a crisis. Car chases in LA are often eliminated when there's a police helicopter because they can simply follow the vehicle safely from a distance as the chopper tracks the car.
Providing overhead visibility support in advance of police arrival is a huge benefit to citizens during 911 calls. If a drone can respond in two minutes, and police are 7-10 minutes away, that's a massive situational awareness benefit that will save lives.
When someone calls for a house fire, having a drone arrive in minutes, potentially with a fire retardant payload, while ground-based fire vehicles arrive 5-10 minutes later, can mean the difference between life and death. At the very least, it provides tremendous information to the fire fighters on the way as to what to expect. They can see the fire before they arrive.
Two major life saving improvements for emergency rooms in the last 50 years were radios in the ambulances so that the ER knew what was coming in, and electronic EKG / vitals relay so that doctors had more precise telemetry of patient status. Drone first responder will have many similar benefits.
Yeah obviously there are safety benefits. There are also safety benefits to having surveillance cameras on every street corner. And think of the lives we could save if everybody was implanted with a tracking chip at birth so we could instantly know if they're in distress. Sometimes the juice ain't worth the squeeze.
Turns out, marginalized and minority communities, counter-intuitively, tend to prefer it the most.
As for tracking chip -- we don't do it at birth, because we don't need to. Most people over the age of 15 keep a cell phone on them which provides tracking capability / cellular triangulation. It's used to save lives and apprehend criminals constantly. The privacy issues are actually more marketing based and have nothing to do with the GPS / triangulation issues, and people don't want to solve those, unfortunately.
Shameful copaganda from a16z. I can see some optimism for crypto but cop tech is just sad to see.
The material effect of this is dramatically extending cop surveillance capability, regardless of the intent. That’s not a non-controversial thing to post neutrally and expect to be celebrated without criticism. Less polite society has a word that describes that called bootlicking.
The “let’s be practical here” attitude of “well we just gotta give the cops more to see them do better” is an endless cycle.
Note that davidu is in his bio anti-anarchist (libertarian), meaning he fights the enemies of the law and the state and the enemies of capital. Common enough around here but want to point out he proclaims a mission of supporting the state and law enforcement. lol. Just want to give Disclaimer to the political mission.
Poor, marginalized communities suffer disproportionately from crime — and accordingly tend to promote pro-police policies.
The only people who don’t recognize that are bourgeoisie who associate those communities with crime — and due to their own biases, assume they don’t want more police from a place of (near) total ignorance. Or who have their privileged sensibilities offended by the fact communities which suffer disproportionate crime also have disproportionate criminals — so try to sweep it under the rug with biased enforcement.
But those are luxury beliefs, reinforced with manufactured consent by bourgeois institutions: people actually suffering from crime tend to have considerably more practical beliefs.
I don't have the numbers, but nothing you've said here correlates with my own observations and experiences. And yes, I spent a large portion of my life poor, living in poor and marginalized communities.
Perhaps there are regional differences in play here.
The article is mostly about these trends coming to small-town America, not crime-ridden inner cities. If crime rises to the level where these measures become a necessity in certain areas I can understand that. But normalizing these policies as typical day-to-day operations of officers nationwide regardless of local circumstances is unhealthy, they've been needlessly militarized too much already.
If everyone had a collar that could taser them on command. We could stop lot of violent crime. Some is holding a gun, just taser them and retrieve body.
Letting the police install video cameras and microphones inside your home would also have many benefits. They could catch burglars, or call an ambulance if you have a heart attack. What could go wrong?
We can talk about everything that can go wrong, but as it is a cop can kill you if he decides to. It comes down to whether or not the forces that be decide to.
Possibly police will be less likely to use lethal force if they avoid taking what they may perceive to be a lethal risk by using drones.
I'd like a world with as much freedom and as few restrictions as possible; yet I also know that it's increasingly easy for someone working alone to cause enormous damage and loss of life.
I want a legal system simple enough that at least half the population know all their rights and responsibilities without any danger of unwittingly violating the law, because "ignorance of the law must not be a legitimate excuse" but it clearly is an excuse in a world where lawyers laugh in your face if you ask them if anyone knows all the laws.
I want punishments that have no vengeance, punishments which only serve to be deterrence for the sane, and where the insane are humanely kept out of harm's way; for these to be effective, I suspect (but don't know for sure) that the best way is to have near 100% accurate fines almost immediately upon detection, which in turn have to be small — framing example: you drop litter, 30 seconds later a notification of a fine for $1.00 appears on your phone, which you can also make go away by picking up what you dropped.
I don't know how to prevent that from becoming a totalitarian nightmare thanks to the apparent popularity of ever-escalating punishments for all offences.
I don't know how to watch the watchers. "State secrets" may be an excuse for the powerful to hide behind, but it's also, not only.
I don't know how to square that with the embarrassment that people have over so many aspects of themselves, that makes the right to privacy an absolute necessity.
And this kind of privacy issue is "easy mode" compared to what happens if we get mind uploads.
> you drop litter, 30 seconds later a notification of a fine for $1.00 appears on your phone, which you can also make go away by picking up what you dropped
Instead of educating and healing people psych so that they are intrinsically motivated to not do shitty things, you watch them all the time and punish disobedience. Definitely not like any totalitarian state.
(Also there are many people for whom $1 is not worth a second's thought, and many people who have zero or negative amount of $ and will never pay it. If you really make it about that $1 instead of values, streets will drown in garbage.)
Oh it might be totalitarian, but to the extent that it is, it's anarcho-totalitarian, despite that sounding like a tautological impossibly at first glance.
Going from the opening paragraph on Wikipedia:
> Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.
It's absolutely the "complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life" — at least, for whatever matters, which I want be the smallest possible set of things (see point about law simple enough most actually know what it is); I don't know if that can be done without devolving into also the "prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state", but preventing that is also my position.
That's why I listed conjugate pairs of contrasting positions.
> Also there are many people for whom $1 is not worth a second's thought, and many people who have zero or negative amount of $ and will never pay it
Indeed, that's why I prefaced it with "framing example": I'm not going to go into the weeds with an entire novel social system for the sake of a comment.
It makes sense to consider those two proposals as the unrelated technologies they are.
We can in fact choose which technological rollouts are beneficial and which are harmful. I'm not sure what point you're making by trying to link the two.
Oh! I'm so sorry I was not clear enough! I was not trying to link the two. So to borrow a framework from another field, medicine, every medication (solution to a problem) must clear thresholds for both efficacy (benefits) and safety (downsides/drawbacks). The parent comment's analysis of police drones considers only one of the two, efficacy/benefits, and ignores the problems it could or would cause. As a counterexample, I provided one other - unrelated! - example of where looking only at efficacy does not yield the correct answer. Thanks for asking, I'm sure it was very unclear!
The expense of helicopters acts as a natural limit to the amount of abuse that cops can engage in with the helicopter. Drones are a lot cheaper, and essentially lifts a restraint.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the use of drones, but I think their use needs appropriate restrictions and oversight. Given how little effective oversight cops have in general, and especially in the use of powerful tech, I am very skeptical that we'll see that with the use of drones.
It’s a slippery slope though, one doesn’t even need to be hyperbolic, like why not just have the drones always flying around instead of only as a responder?
From a technical standpoint it doesn't make a lot of sense.
CCTVs in cities are a big political topic. For corridors that people walk through often, this is much more effective for facial recognition and you don't have to power propellers or deal with crashes. The camera will operate for a decade without incident.
For overhead algorithmic surveillance, just use satellite photos. I fully expect that sat swarms in LEO surveillance will become a thing in my lifetime. Sure there are clouds, but the whole thing is imperfect, the goal isn't to track you 100% of the time and they don't need to anyway.
For persistent surveillance, drones are good for what exactly? Periodically peeking in windows? How many windows would a drone need to look in on a patrol? Can you fly them low enough to actually do this? On a regular route at that, my god.
I'm very worried about tracking with facial recognition and systematic location collecting based on cell signals and satellite car tracking. But this article was about a drone catching people smoking weed after a busybody called 911. The tech is a very marginal sideshow in that story.
Sure but I would feel weird with a camera up in the air unless I totally trust that it is up because of an ongoing crime. Can you trust that? What if the camera hangs around "just in case"? How can you check? Will be police department obligated to disclose this or will they have a legal excuse to neither confirm nor deny?
Maybe one approach would be to make it illegal for the police to deploy them without a warrant, require the warrants to be public, and to stream the drone's location.
The idea being to allow independent observers to check that the police are following the rules.
That would constitute an illegal search and you could sue the police department for it. The judicial system, despite all of its flaws, has already solved this particular scenario.
Why not just give them brutally omniscient unlimited power over us, by your logic that would be radically beneficial to our health and safety. You’re starting from the misguided idea that police actively save people from crime’s dangers, and speak nothing to concern for giving power to armed thugs over us besides cheering it on. Just baseless copaganda and shameful to see celebrated.
How does the logic work that giving more tech and power and resources somehow reduces power
Those who rush to analyze objective stats on this fail to recognize how little oversight and accountability there is for police, numbers often don’t meaningfully exist. Like asking for numbers from China, it’s just a bow to authority. The critical analysis and objectivity of that is performative.
There is always a line somewhere that divides a topic. When safety and security are worth it vs. when privacy and safety from authority is more worth it.
You seem to think that line should constrain authorities' permission to send up eyes in the sky for little to no cost. I think it could actually reduce government spying if it substituted for camera on every corner.
You shouldn't be down voted. While using drones for spraying fire retardant in urban areas is rather fanciful with current technology, the drone as first responder concept makes total sense for observation. The drone operator can brief the human responders while they're en route so that they arrive fully prepared to deal with the situation. The Campbell, CA police department recently started such a program.
And no one is seriously proposing mounting weapons on civilian drones. That is essentially already banned by ATF and FAA rules.
A couple of years ago, I probably would have argued with you but now I'm 100% on board with the approach described in this article.
> Unlike Baltimore’s aircraft, Brookhaven’s machines won’t fly unless an emergency is reported. Their cameras won’t film, or even point down, until they are at the scene. All footage is destroyed after 30 days unless it is being used in a criminal investigation or for training purposes, and all the flight logs are public.
IMO, this is a completely reasonable approach that provides a pathway for better engagement, less ambiguity and a more authoritative perspective than bystander recordings that may be selectively edited for clicks. Body cameras are great, but they miss perspective of watching the officers.
So they say. As we've learnt over the years, what can we truly trust? How can we verify that these promises are kept? I read a good HN comment before, which could be inspiration for a comic or TV series: "Who watches the watchers?"
Activity that falls outside of the specified parameters needs to be deemed as illegal. The ultimate way of getting there is people need to vote on sensible privacy laws on what can or can’t be used for prosecution.
If a prosecutor tries to use footage that falls outside of those parameters then it can’t be used as evidence.
It needs to be stronger than that. There ought to be penalties for activities outside the specified scope (preferably criminal in cases that exceed some minimal threshold of severity). Just stopping it at the trial level is inadequate if we want the policy-sketched privacy to be meaningful.
Go watch Cuffani's testimony today. The IG is who watches the watchers. He admits he routinely just deleted the text messages on his government phone despite record keeping requirements because 'he didn't do government business on his government phone'. It is also pointed out to him that half of his staff feel it would be unsafe to be whistleblowers. He and his staff are the people that whistleblowers report to. But sure, let's trust them this time. The constitution is the highest law in the land. Government officials regularly break the law and violate our constitutional rights, and all that happens is a 'we'll try better next time'. Routinely break the highest law in the land and nothing happens. Try that with driving with expired tags, try habitually driving with that and respond 'my bad, I didn't realize'. Or try the 'I didn't know it was illegal' defense they use, or the 'good faith' defense they get. All to protect them from any consequence when they break THE HIGHEST LAWS OF THE LAND within the Constitution that all our other laws stem from.
no, helicopters in LA (and "eyes in the sky" in general) don't contribute at all to effective policing or safety. they actually entice showboats to create a spectacle so they get on tv. this creates more public danger. and there have been a number of chases where the suspect was lost even so.
but all you need in these instances is an incontrovertible photo of the suspect and the car/license plate, witnesses of the crime, and effective investigation, just like any other criminal case. the helicopter is there for cops to show off and waste disproportional money better spend on investigation.
first responders are trained to assess situations quickly, so "situational awareness" has very marginal benefit (not zero, but also not much) in all of the use cases you cite. the extra overhead is simply not worth it in most cases. like legged robots, drones are a technology looking for a market, but there really isn't much market out there.
we don't need more surveillance tech. we need more dogged and trustworthy investigators and first responders.
I love good discussion on the benefits and costs to society of putting tracking, cameras, and tools in the hands of law enforcement.
I really am disappointed with the low-brow slashdot style "hurr durr what's next, trackers in our necks" level of comment.
Is there any way to implement a first response drone that isn't ripe for abuse? Can we put retention limits on the files? Can we require approval from a higher-up before deployment? Can the use be limited to felony assaults or higher?
Or would all of that be not enough, and we should intentionally ban drone use by law enforcement?
Drones as first responders seems like a great idea, get info, keep officers safe, even suspects/victims are safer as a result. They are already being used in the field today.
But I can also quickly see this slipping into a surveillance state kind of system as drone automation becomes cheaper and more reliable. Drones being sent out for all sorts of minor grievances and being used to stalk citizens. Which is not the sort of environment I want to live in.
Well, it sounds like this PD started out with a well informed policy and are being held to that policy. It seems like this kind of very strict policy enforcement AND public disclosure should be codified at the state and federal level.
This article is about police in Georgia. In Atlanta, the police are on recording saying they are actively targeting Cop City protesters with baseless charges as punishment to proactively dissuade them from persisting because they’re worried about their ability to turn the public, and because they identified vulnerabilities on their side the protesters could legitimately/legally pursue. The corruption is as incredible as it is typical - the small town ones have the same capabilities and incentives and this is normalized everywhere, it is the same institution everywhere.
Remember DevOps? 5 Whys style analysis helps here - systems analysis
It's preferable to the alternative: cash-negative rural departments ("we don't need government", etc) funding themselves. Much rather have a robot policing me than the local ex-quarterback who could just barely be bothered to finish his GED. And yes, I know the retort, "well at least I know that guy". Yeah, ok sure. But does your daughter? Your girlfriend? Your wife's family? Corruption climbs a ladder of familiarity, and you don't ever know where you are on that ladder. That's what makes it wasteful.
Drones are a band aid, of course. Until exurbs realize just how expensive they actually are - people insisting on an urban quality of life when they're 90 minutes from a center - this same problem will crop up over, and over, and over again in everything from sewage to schools. That tends to happen when you ignore numbers - you keep ramming into a like category of problems. In a larger sense, from a systems perspective, I guess I am fascinated by those cases where people do this ramming, and where they keep doing it for decades or centuries. What force makes that happen, and can it be harnessed?
Sounds to me like you get your knowledge of rural life from movies/TV.
What you mentioned doesn’t at all match the reality I’ve experienced growing up and living in a small town.
My rural county has a balanced budget, property tax increases are well below inflation (mine actually decreased in 2022), average fire/ambulance/police response time is well below suburban equivalents. Crime is incredibly low, police write few tickets, roads in great shape and muni services all above average.
Our Sheriff deputies are professional. They view themselves as public servants and consistently go above and beyond to assist. The total number of speeding tickets issued in a week for the whole county is in the single digits. The only time they “go hard” is against home invaders, violent offenders and other serious felony-level crime.
It is probably comforting somehow for people in cities to paint life in rural areas as behind and backwards but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Out here in flyover country, almost all of us are on the same page and we have our shit together. If you can handle the associated challenges (weather, fewer social opportunities, etc.) the quality of life is through the roof.
Yea, the "cash negative" part doesn't ring true to me.
The thing about rural police departments is: Comparatively little crime happens out in the boonies (at least not the kind of crime that police like to respond to), yet they are full of cops, since these areas tend to be run by tough-on-crime voters. There are probably small towns / small counties in America where the police are >50% of the region's budget. To the point where they're buying (or are gifted) MRAPs and other military surplus gear. So they're over-funded, over-staffed, but without much to do. Kind of a deadly combination for citizens.
When that typical "OMG suspicious-looking black man in my neighborhood" complaint comes in, I'd much rather have a drone sent out to investigate than 10 bored, armed-to-the-teeth officers looking for some excitement.
Pick a random small town/county off I-81 in Virginia and it likely doesn't match your area. The parent describes much of Appalachia and a lot of, for lack of a better term, rural former-confederate areas of the country.
Your town sounds great to live in, but it's likely hardly representative.
Well, that's fair. I had lived in the swamps of interior Florida for thirty-some of my years, having been born there, two miles of sand-gravel-mud track from the nearest pavement. Miiiiles of cattle. Internet from our little radio tower. So yeah, that's pretty idiosyncratic. I'm sure it's not representative.
The locals had just managed to shut down the volunteer fire department year before I finally left. Another notable instance from that year is four county cops getting blown up in a meth house, which was super hinky in lots of ways. A while before that, there was a deputy or somesuch that kept on stabbing people he pulled over. Of course he got slapped on the fanny, but then out he goes again, and another few months - bam! - stab a dude. Another local cop cussed the same way old telegrams used the word STOP, which was super weird with the inlaws in the car.
Our local cops all the way up and down were notorious even to other cops. Buddy of mine with the State Troopers had a working regulation, that if they were called on scene by one of the local cops, to always make sure that more than one trooper responded. "The hell?", I think I said at the time. He shrugged and said, "They don't trust 'em, that's all."
But the worst - the absolute worst - were all those people who moved out into the middle of a frickin' swamp prairie and complained how the cows mooed too loud. "And the snakes!". Or when their pets "get et" - by raptor, gator, or who-knows-what. Or "I think I heard shots from your house!". Oh for pete's sake lady, the paved road is TWO MILES from here . .
I think, ideally, no one needs to show up at all. Drone pulls your ID from the license/registration/facial analysis, fines you, then tells you to come in. You don't, then it then sits and waits for you at home/work/family, tells you to come in. Shuts down your ID, your cards, your cell, very possibly your car, and everything else, and bills your family . . until you come in.
Sure, it's dystopian as all hell, but unless cops get paid like actual officers, or you figure out a way to pay cops like dishwashers, I think it's a better option for low-density policing. I guess, these days, we can have local neighborhood volunteer police, which . . whelp . . is also dystopian but in a whole other new - or, rather, old-fashioned - direction.
I find it interesting they are using DJI since they are banned in most US gov't agencies IME.
That being said, DJI has a nominally better platform (for the same rough price) for their (this PD) uses than the M300. The M30[1] series is a bit smaller and doesn't have swappable payloads, but it exchanges that ability to have a home-base auto-land, auto-deploy, and auto-charge using the DJI Dock[2]. Mix that with the DJI ability to do control handoff and a city-wide mesh of repeater stations and you have a very powerful aerial support system. The docks could be spread across the city to minimize response time. Those M30s have a camera gimbal with wide-angle 12MP, Zoom 48MP, and Thermal cameras. The software handles automatic subject tracking once they are marked. The whole ecosystem is awesome and terrifying in the lens of law enforcement.
EDIT: I say all of this as someone that owns and flies DJI M300 RTKs drones professionally. I'm also looking at getting systems on the Blue List so I can work with US government agencies.
> I find it interesting they are using DJI since they are banned in most US gov't agencies IME.
No one in China cares about petty crime in Cincinnati. There may be some long-con, APT style hack of local PDs to try to get into something bigger a la The Cuckoo's Egg, but it's probably easier to just bribe Lockheed managers.
I was making no value judgement, as evidenced my my personal usage of DJI gear. I was simply pointing out that many US gov't agencies have policies that forbid gear from companies like DJI. It's frustrating that I cannot get contracts for those agencies unless I'm using gear off of the blue list.
I've thought a lot about how drone technology, geofencing via IMEI/MAC address capture and tracking could benefit crime enforcement. (Caveat is all this may seem a bit dystopian. But balance it against the idea that our current model may seem barbaric a few years down the road.) Police violence against those resisting arrest or attempting escape is essentially not necessary if you can tag the suspect with an aerial drone, determine their mobile device's IMEI address (just assume everyone has one), and even affix a low power GPS tag to their vehicle, clothing, or person (think a gorilla glue patch on the arm or leg in a sudden struggle to get free). Then...no need to shoot, no need to crash their car, no need to detain. Watch and document the suspect evading arrest, start capturing mobile communications and get a warrant to review them later, fly overhead and watch their getaway with all traffic violations documented. Arrest them as if you were serving them papers for court some time later with an appropriately sized team. Technology should be being used to solve crime. It is a slippery slope worth traveling for the betterment of society.
Didn’t finish the article but definitely worth noting that Brookhaven isn’t “small-town America.” It’s just a large swath of what would otherwise be called Atlanta if it hadn’t been annexed and incorporated by the City of Brookhaven
I think this is probably alright provided it is not abused. In this case it is currently a mostly level playing field. They can fly over me and I can fly over them. As soon as it is illegal for me to monitor responders with a drone then I will be against this. About the only difference is that I don't have an easy way to combine drones, license plate readers and facial recognition. All I can do is 9 mile range, spotlight and FLIR. Perhaps this will change with time and more drones will be required to have geofencing and some type of police blackout capabilities such as automated temporary flight restrictions around them at which point there will likely be a big underground market for modded drones.
This could be interesting in a watching the watchers kind of way if the police departments aren’t in charge of this,
And it is a municipal service that benefits all services within the municipality, including situational supervision for law enforcement.
reply