Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime Government Robotics Transportation United States Technology

US Police Consider Flying Drones Armed With Stun Guns (digitaltrends.com) 163

Slashdot reader Presto Vivace tipped us off to news reports that U.S. police officials are considering the use of flying drones to taser their suspects. From Digital Trends: Talks have recently taken place between police officials and Taser International, a company that makes stun guns and body cameras for use by law enforcement, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. While no decision has yet been made on whether to strap stun guns to remotely controlled quadcopters, Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said his team were discussing the idea with officials as part of broader talks about "various future concepts."

Tuttle told the Journal that such technology could be deployed in "high-risk scenarios such as terrorist barricades" to incapacitate the suspect rather than kill them outright... However, critics are likely to fear that such a plan would ultimately lead to the police loading up drones with guns and other weapons. Portland police department's Pete Simpson told the Journal that while a Taser drone could be useful in some circumstances, getting the public "to accept an unmanned vehicle that's got some sort of weapon on it might be a hurdle to overcome."

The article points out that there's already a police force in India with flying drones equipped with pepper spray.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Police Consider Flying Drones Armed With Stun Guns

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23, 2016 @07:52PM (#53136503)

    of law enforcement

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Been predicting this for some time along with others. This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.

      Not really a revelation, more of an inevitability. And certainly not a conspiracy theory - governments worldwide are already discussing this future openly...and assumedly otherwise.

      The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys" (i.e. not them) until it is too late as per usual.

      • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @10:05PM (#53136853)

        This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.

        The robot didn't do anything. The police controlling the robot used it to deal with the guy remotely so they didn't have to lose any more lives approaching a guy who was promising to do more killing. How is that a single bit different than shooting him from 500 yards away? It's not. Not a bit.

        The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys"

        Why should someone apologize for telling the truth? If it was your job to deal with an armed, violent person, and you were handed a tool that allows you to do that with less of a chance of you being killed while doing your job, are you really saying you wouldn't use that tool? Let me guess, you think it's unfair for the police to wear body armor, right? Yeah. Right.

        • Don't Kid yourself, this is for riot kontrol.
        • by Gilgaron ( 575091 ) on Monday October 24, 2016 @06:45AM (#53137885)
          Taser armed drones are actually less worrying to me than the fellow they killed with the robot bomb. In the latter case, killing a suspect is justified when the police are under deadly threat. Arguably, if the sniper is contained and they can take their time jerry rigging a drone bomb, they could also take their time to come up with something that doesn't circumvent due process. I don't know enough details about that situation to say they weren't justified, but it is easy to see how the implications are a little troubling. However, if they had been able to taser that fellow with drones then he'd have been able to stand trial.
          • by Agripa ( 139780 )

            It was hardly the first time police deployed a bomb [wikipedia.org] but at least they didn't burn down a few blocks of housing in Dallas. And of course that was not the first or last time the FBI was involved in such an operation.

            I suspect the Dallas police were so enraged that they just looked for the most creative way to execute the guy and had no intention of capturing him alive.

        • by dywolf ( 2673597 ) on Monday October 24, 2016 @08:14AM (#53138209)

          they could have put anything on the robot.
          they chose to use a bomb, instead of CS (tear) gas or any of a number of other options that would have ended the situation without further loss of life.

          by that logic of yours, we should replace all police with robots as in Elysium or any of a number of other scifi stories.
          why risk anyone's lives? lets just use robots to decide everyone's fate and enforce the laws.
          the reason is because putting humans in the mix, putting them at risk, is part of the safeguard against abuse of power.
          your logic is the logic that justifies saving police lives at the cost of all others.

          being a police officer is dangerous, though not in the top 10. and it should be. it is by nature a risky profession. some days you interact with normal everyday citizens who just went a lil too fast. others you interact with actual dangerous criminals. that's the nature of the job when it comes to enforcing the law in relation to the nations citizens...all of them, normal or dangerous.

          there are far too many police who think they're supposed to be warriors.
          THEY ARE NOT.
          that flawed mindset largely comes from ex-military who transitioned but forgot they aren't at war with America's citizens.
          I've actually been told by various officers that the view of them as guardians is dangerous and emperils theyre safety.
          that is garbage.

          police are not warriors.
          they absolutely ARE guardians.
          and part of being a guardian of the public is protecting ALL OF THE PUBLIC, including the dangerous ones, to the best of your ability.

          and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            "and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one."

            But then how else can I legally bully people?

          • police are not warriors.
            they absolutely ARE guardians.

            No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when somet

      • Yeah, with mistrust of police at an all time high, weaponinzed drones in the cops' hands, how could that go wrong?

      • Well, what's your alternative? Send more human cops in so they can get shot dead by a terrorist who's heavily armed? Sending in a robot with a bomb was a bit extreme, but under those circumstances, it was warranted. If they had had a flying Taser drone, that would have been preferable (maybe, depending on your POV), as it's less-than-lethal and most likely would have incapacitated the shooter instead of killing him.

        For extreme situations, I don't see what the problem is here, and a flying Taser makes per

    • Copseye (Score:4, Interesting)

      by quenda ( 644621 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @09:02PM (#53136687)

      As predicted by Larry Niven in 1972 short story, Cloak of Anarchy.

      http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/... [technovelgy.com]

      Someone at police headquarters had expected that. Twice the usual number of copseyes floated overhead, waiting. Gold dots against blue, basketball-sized, twelve feet up. Each a television eye and a sonic stunner, each a hookup to police headquarters, they were there to enforce the law of the Park...
      Within King's Free Park was an orderly approximation of anarchy. People were searched at the entrances. There were no weapons inside. The copseyes, floating overhead and out of reach were the next best thing to no law at all.

      http://www.larryniven.net/stor... [larryniven.net]

      • by msk ( 6205 )

        Alas, our police aren't as benevolent as those Niven depicts. Ours would take umbrage at rocks being thrown at their copseye-equivalents.

        • Alas, our police aren't as benevolent as those Niven depicts. Ours would take umbrage at rocks being thrown at their copseye-equivalents.

          Are you kidding? Ours takes umbrage if you cross the street in the "wrong" place (even with no cars coming) or burn a spliff in the top of a tree where nobody can smell it. There's not going to be any benevolent anarchy. Just a boot stomping a human face if it doesn't assemble those doodads correctly, forever.

      • Watchbird by Robert Sheckley: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebook... [gutenberg.org] these are autonomous and finally capable of killing. But, everything proceeds via a frog-boiling process, step by step.

        I'm a 65 year old Brit and the rot seemed to start when the police were removed from the street (and stuck into Q-cars) because it was 'more efficient'. A person in a remote control room does not have the local knowledge to know that the 'threat' is someone is eccentric but harmless and has a heart problem. Result is judici
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Humbubba ( 2443838 )
      Meh. Welcome to yesterday. Dallas police have already used a robot with a pound of C-4 to blow up a sniper in July 2016. This ain't no cheesy science Fiction.... http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli... [nbcnews.com]
    • Screw ED209, just equip the drone with a submachine gun! Already been done and demonstrated by our friends over at FPSRussia... ;)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Then moves to gun.

    Controlled much?

  • How encrypted is that link?
    How much computer power in a parked van with carefully designed antennas is needed to build up a picture of the command and control link in a suburban setting per device?
    It really, really frequency hops and has super encryption?
    After that all that a device that sends a default return code or induces an error to make the drone stop and return.
    A bit like whats done to mil grade drones but as a production line in a city.
    A race to offer counter measures to the inner city and
    • Ahuxley, I appreciate the thought that went into that, but all that isn't necessary.

      Just put a couple of car batteries in a drug house to power a brute-force broadband R.F. noise generator and broadband amplifier to be kicked on when the lookout gives the signal a raid is incoming.

      Not only no remotely-controlled drones, no police radios, no cellphones, nada. If it ain't wired together it ain't talking, at least within a few blocks. No tactical comms, no calls for backup, no alerts about fleeing suspects, no

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        But cant they just keep on adding heavy RF shielding? Add a bigger engine and carry more protection?
        When a R.F. noise generator is encountered for the first time think of the sales to counter such inner city creativity:
        Version 2.0 Feel the weight of the new shielding.
        Version 2.1a A tight beam of commands from a helicopter to a small dish on the big drone.
        Version 3.0 will be on wheels/tracks and just spool optical behind it for the length of the mission.
        The upgrades and up sell will keep shareholders
        • But cant they just keep on adding heavy RF shielding?

          No. R.F. doesn't work that way.

          It's the inverse-square law of transmitter strength versus distance and relative signal strength at the receiver. Possibly comm equipment in a communications van at the scene *might* be powerful enough to punch a signal over the noise, but regular car radios and hand-helds would not be powerful enough. Then, even if the radios at the scene could get a signal to the station/HQ somehow (other than leaving the area or disabling the jammer), there's no way those at the scene will

      • Yeah, but now the one guy in your gang smart enough to hook all that shit up right is in federal prison, and when the rest of you get out of your State prison and start things back up, you don't have any of that anymore.

        It "works" one time, but the SWAT team still arrests everybody.

        • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          How smart is the software on the drone and is the antenna tested to set specs in the factory?
          If that can be measured or simulated a 3d printer with a study plan, read me and lists of materials and equipment could be passed around the inner city areas.
          Design once, print anywhere. Thats the problem with factory fixed hardware and limited software expecting to have a secure radio link.
          The next step is extracting the images sent back. Is the drone searching every part of the building or does it go direct
          • Who fucking cares? The cops are going to shoot you if they catch you. You'll be hoping it it the FBI that arrests you, because you won't end up full of holes.

            You're not even going to fucking do any of that shit, you start following the cops around with your debug kit like that and you're already in jail before you even figure their shit out, because there are serious federal resources at play in that stuff. When you start fucking with police equipment control, that isn't normal crime.

            I understand you wouldn

      • A raspberry pi is fast enough to run it in autonomous mode. Targeting based on facial recognition is trivial these days.

  • I was told that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. Now you're telling me there's other ways to stop them?
    • Only government will ever be able purchase, posses, or use these since the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the government is protected from being disarmed by the people
  • by somenickname ( 1270442 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @08:26PM (#53136585)

    If these drones can accurately stun someone, why not make them autonomous, feed their video to an AI familiar with the law and then stun anyone who breaks a law? Oh, wait, because that's pure fucking insanity. But, it's also the direction we are rapidly heading. It will start with drones as backup/expendable less-than-lethal devices and progress pretty quickly to autonomous law enforcement drones. I keep hearing that the average person breaks the law several times a day so, it should make for a really exciting society!

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      On-board AI might be preferable to a hackable radio. If someone breaks either the radio protocol or gets into the control system computers, they would have a read-made army of stun-gun equipped drones.

      Could be a great way for Russia to turn the protests when Trump loses into riots, making out that the police started stunning people at random. Or just a toy for some 14 year old kid in Bulgaria.

      • The law is pretty darn complex. I think a computer powerful enough to compute "I see 'this' and I've decided it's against the law" in near realtime would probably kill the battery life of a drone. Or make it too heavy to fly. At some point in the future you could probably compute it on-board but, for the foreseeable future, you'd have to stream the data to a large data center to crunch it.

        The funny thing is that you'd probably use a cellphone signal to transmit the data. So, yeah, your worries are justi

  • only fair if the coast guard gets sharks with lasers.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Last time I checked FAA rules it was illegal to fire projectiles from aircraft. Military excepted.
    • Last time I checked, it isn't legally a projectile unless it reaches a certain number of feet per second. These types of devices do not have that much power.

      Generally there is an exception for low speed objects only if they have a certain type of penetrating head. For example, is most states a "broadhead" hunting arrow is a projectile; a target arrow is generally not a projectile from the perspective of laws regulating projectiles. Deadly, but just not the same type of risk as a gun or broadhead.

  • Why do they have to use flying drones? Flying drones generate so much noise as it approaches the criminal. They can be easily discovered, and destroyed.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Think of the shareholders. Why sell a device any other nation can offer to US law enforcement at a lower cost?
      Make it special, US mil spec encrypted and enjoy a "no bid" security contract.
      Then make it a suggested part of every law enfacement budget. So staff can expect the same quality standards all over the USA. Get educated once, drone anywhere in the USA.
    • Flying drones generate so much noise as it approaches the criminal.

      That is not a universal guarantee. It may be that available drones are loud because the use cases don't really cause "quiet" to increase the price enough. Expect some sort of fixed-wing dirigible to fill this role eventually. But for the most part, it doesn't need to be quiet. It needs to be effective when it gets into range.

      They can be easily discovered, and destroyed.

      If you're shooting at the equipment the police are deploying, they just shoot you. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang ba

      • Expect some sort of fixed-wing dirigible to fill this role eventually.

        That's not realistic. Cities have crazy-ass winds. A multicopter will have plenty of work to do remaining stable, but at least it will be able to do it.

    • One hopes they will be used more for preventative measures than actual reactionary deployment.

      Drones have cameras, they record what you're doing. Think of it like the empty cop car sometimes parked on the side of the highway, it's there to prevent people speeding, people see it, don't realize it's empty and slows down.

      The best use of such drones can be set up for sporting events or large concerts, as people load and unload from stadium, just to watch for trouble. That they make noise and draw attention to

  • yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @09:23PM (#53136743) Homepage

    Yeah, they'll be used for barricaded hostages and terrorists and such. Just like SWAT teams.

  • to track runaway vehicles instead of chasing them.

  • by Falos ( 2905315 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @11:02PM (#53136999)
    Automated "peacekeeper" drones are like the most iconic representation you can get for scifi/cyber distopia. They're the poster boy, easily.

    So if you want us feeling (even more) like everything is turning into 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc. by all means carry on.
  • I dunno, about the rest of you guys but I'm looking forward to the police force giving away pricey new drones when they start using these for everyday policing. :)

  • I expect to see criminals starting to wear chain mail. I'm sure modern techniques could make it quite light and easy to use, especially since it doesn't need to stop bullets or blades. All it needs to do is prevent the taser darts from penetrating so deeply that the chain mail can no longer short them out. Then most of the taser current should pass through the armour instead of the victim's flesh. I suspect victims might feel some pain, and perhaps even a lot of pain, because of the imperfect electrical con

    • by Agripa ( 139780 )

      Nothing heavy like chain or ring mail is required. A thin metal mesh embedded within a jacket would be completely sufficient and practically unnoticeable; even a carbon fiber layer would work. Even when the hooks pierce the skin, it the metal mesh will still short out the taser.

  • Whatever soldiers use in the middle east will be used against American citizens by cops. That's what happens in a Security State.
  • It's all I got, I don'tknow what else to say.

  • Don't you think that the cops are just friggen weird. It's just one budget busting whack job idea after another. There is too much policing in this country. Rolling them back hard and fast. Enough of this nonsense.

  • After seeing this and reading the related links, it is clearly time for an xrobocop tag.
  • Is it time to discuss 3 Laws Safe?
  • by seven of five ( 578993 ) on Monday October 24, 2016 @08:47AM (#53138335)
    How effective can it be when you can take it out with a stick or a rock?
  • by DriveDog ( 822962 ) on Monday October 24, 2016 @10:05AM (#53138781)
    Partly because of the paralysis and partly because of the sellout in Congress, laws governing the use of technology in law enforcement have fallen way behind. My knee-jerk reaction is to say "no weaponized UAVs within our borders", but that's just not realistic. LE won't just standby while bad guys weaponize theirs, nor should they. But so far we haven't even gotten control of handheld Tasers. Instead of being used in place of deadly force, they're being used in place of physical restraint or even passive noncompliance, as if they never result in injury or death, which they most certainly occasionally do. I'd say a starting point would be to create federal legislation specifying when Tasers can be used, and it should be pretty restrictive. Then that can be extended to included remote-controlled vehicles. Will such laws preclude the unwanted use of weapons on drones? Of course not. But those doing so may be caught, fired, and prosecuted.
  • Sadists, sadists would like that, like anyone would taser someone while they are already down.

  • Much prefer someone fly their drone in, than run into a building shooting, or getting shot.
    • Thing is, the view from a drone is a lot worse than the view from a police officer, so it will be harder to tell if force is necessary. It would be useful in cases where the criminal is located in a place where he's otherwise difficult to neutralize.

  • Local government can barely patrol in automobiles without fucking up their gear. Federal government can't even properly deploy a website. We see our overseers ass up project after project, while ever eyeing more expensive projects and tech.

    This will be a colossal fuck up. Politicians and police are expecting turnkey aircraft. That just aint how its going to go. Aircraft in general is pretty onerous to maintain, autonomous stuff even more-so. Shit goes wrong all the time. I bet they wind up keeping a ton of

  • So if you're a criminal, you could wear some chainmail to short out the taser!

  • If drones have Facial recognition software they'll become ultimate killing machines; wh.gov/iyhMK

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...