New Policing System Will Send Drones To the Source of Gunshots (newatlas.com) 170
A new policing system is being developed that will send autonomous drones equipped with shot-locating technology to the source of gunshots. "By analyzing the live video from its onboard camera, police officers can then gain a better sense of the situation they're heading into," reports New Atlas. From the report: Already in use in over 120 cities in the US, South Africa and the Caribbean, the American ShotSpotter system utilizes a network of microphones within a neighborhood to detect "loud, impulsive sounds." Whenever such a sound is detected, its geographical originating point can be triangulated by analyzing the millisecond differences in the times at which it was picked up by the different microphones -- the closer a mic was to the gun, the earlier it will have detected the sound of that gun firing. That said, a combination of AI software and human staff (at a control center) is used to determine if the sound is indeed gunfire.
In the existing version of the system, police are quickly dispatched to the location. If they're using ground transportation, however, it may take a while for them to get there. And even if the police department has a helicopter, performing pre-flight checks, etc will still take some time -- assuming the aircraft isn't already in the air on patrol, that is. With these potential limitations in mind, Israeli drone manufacturer Airobotics has teamed up with ShotSpotter to add autonomous drones to the mix. In the new version of the setup, police will still be dispatched, but so will the closest system-specific drone. That aircraft will be in the air within seconds, immediately flying to the source of the gunshots. By analyzing the live video from its onboard camera, police officers can then gain a better sense of the situation they're heading into.
In the existing version of the system, police are quickly dispatched to the location. If they're using ground transportation, however, it may take a while for them to get there. And even if the police department has a helicopter, performing pre-flight checks, etc will still take some time -- assuming the aircraft isn't already in the air on patrol, that is. With these potential limitations in mind, Israeli drone manufacturer Airobotics has teamed up with ShotSpotter to add autonomous drones to the mix. In the new version of the setup, police will still be dispatched, but so will the closest system-specific drone. That aircraft will be in the air within seconds, immediately flying to the source of the gunshots. By analyzing the live video from its onboard camera, police officers can then gain a better sense of the situation they're heading into.
Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:4, Funny)
Chicago will need alot just to cover all shootings (Score:2)
Chicago will need alot just to cover all shootings with one 1 drone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long before they mount guns on the drones? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
#define Right? '\n'
Yes, Virginia, its all fuckery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the way ShotSpotter works is:
ShotSpotter "detects" a gunshot. Police go to site, arrest random black person.
No proof that a gun was fired is ever found.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice joke to open the discussion.
Or do you sell bulletproof drones? Might have an ulterior motive.
Re: (Score:3)
Home invasions are not about your home, but about you. They need to know where your stuff is, what your PIN is, and cooperating from the start is by no means a guarantee that you'll escape unscathed anymore. Defending yourself might be your only option to avoid harm. And despite the drop i
Re: (Score:2)
Guns and ammo should not be available to the general public.
Because those in authority have proven to be far more trustworthy?
Re:Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want cops to have guns most of the time either. You know, like in a first-world country.
Seriously. Do a search for "Police firearm use by country". It's shameful how far removed we are from the rest of the developed world.
Re: (Score:2)
While hunting remains as widespread as it is in the US you will never get the cops to surrender their guns. And you won't get the hunters to surrender their guns, either.
What you _can_ do is legislate (or enforce existing legislation) on responsible gun ownership and storage, and enable criminal and/or civil liabilities on those that are irresponsible with their weapons to the point they end up being used in a crime without serious effort to obtain the weapons. (Read: leaving the damn things out on the ta
Re:Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:4, Interesting)
More than that, we'll also need significant police reform.
I'm okay with higher salaries as long as that comes with education requirements (at least an undergrad in criminal justice), significantly improved training (not these absurd private groups either), and real mental health screening and support. I would also like to see stronger civilian oversight, an end to civil asset forfeiture, and a stronger emphasis on community based policing.
Right now, policing is practically designed to attract psychopaths. No one in law enforcement should associate The Punisher with policing, yet that ridiculous skull logo is used illegally in departments across the country.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me *very little* of the developed world uses unarmed police; pretty
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want cops to have guns most of the time either. You know, like in a first-world country. Seriously. Do a search for "Police firearm use by country". It's shameful how far removed we are from the rest of the developed world.
And the first search result for that page is a Wikipedia article with that exact title, which discusses routine carrying, not shootings. Comment was very clearly talking about routinely carrying guns, not shooting statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree. Guns and ammo should not be available to the general public. But you have a large group of Americans that will kill you (with their gun) for even thinking this..
That's because mouth-breathers like you think that a government, made of people voted into office from the general public, are somehow magically transformed into virtuous human beings when they sit down in their new office.
And you're damn right, there are a lot of us who are prepared to fight for this right.
Not just the public - power-hungry egoists (Score:4)
To me, that wording sounded like the politicians are kinda random members of the public. People who devote a year or more of their life to campaigning for a position of power aren't average people. It's not a representative sample.
I read a book written by someone who served in the White House under three presidents. He said that while the characters they are portrayed as on TV are different, their actual personalities are quite similar.
It's people who desperately want to have power over others, and who actually think that most of the country will agree they should be in charts. We didn't end up with Trump as president by random chance. We got Trump (and Clinton) because he's the kind of personality who is willing to give up anything and everything in pursuit of power. Also the kind who thinks he can win the presidency - arrogant enough to think he should be president AND the majority of voters will agree. Politicians are self-selected for arrogant, power-hungry, egotistical personalities.
Re: (Score:2)
It's said that anyone who wants to be in power, shouldn't be. The ideal representative would be reluctant but competent.
Since it's impossible to arrange that, a more practical solution is needed. Fortunately we have one: distribution and devolution of power. A system of proportional representation, virtually guaranteeing coalition governments, and political roles that don't concentrate too much power, like the POTUS has.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. When you said " The ideal representative would be reluctant but competent", that made me think of one person in particular.
Normally, members of the US House who want to be Speaker of the House campaign among their peers, promising to travel to campaign on your behalf on the weekends if you'll vote for them as speaker. (That's the post Nancy Pelosi has held for many years, probably the second most powerful position behind the president.) Once upon a time, there was a really good Congressman, compete
Re: (Score:2)
...But you have a large group of Americans that will kill you (with their gun) for even thinking this..
Reality disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans like killing, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone wants to have the conversation, there is a process to do it.
https://www.archives.gov/feder... [archives.gov]
Until that process is followed, we in the US still have a right to bear arms, given to the people, as was intended by the founders. The thing is, there is not the will to actually take away a right that we enjoy in the US, so instead you get people on one side complaining that they don't get their way all the time, and the other side saying it is a right, as the constitution guarentees.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? If you have, it seems you haven't given it any thought at all.
The 2nd Amendment is about who can serve in the defense of the nation. Conservatives hate this idea, though. See the Heller decision, which essentially erased the first 13 words of the 27 word Amendment. You can't just ignore half the words in the Amendment because you don't like them, even if you're a Supreme Court justice.
Aside from the whole "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a fre
Re: (Score:2)
The 2nd Amendment is about who can serve in the defense of the nation. Conservatives hate this idea, though. See the Heller decision, which essentially erased the first 13 words of the 27 word Amendment. You can't just ignore half the words in the Amendment because you don't like them, even if you're a Supreme Court justice.
Nobody is ignoring them. Quoting Heller decision:
"The Amendmentâ(TM)s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauseâ(TM)s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
You might not like or agree with the interpretation but nothing is being ignored.
But the clever observer will note that it says "that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law". For the clueless, "bear arms" means to defend the country.
Even if true the second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" bearing
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, you explained it far better than I would have.
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:5, Insightful)
Number of mass shooting they've also had in comparison to the US?
Countries that have guns AND dictators? Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan (shotguns are allowed), Nicaragua, South Sudan, Swaziland, etc...
Are you so sure guns are good and don't prevent dictators? (As also mentioned for the US, Trump tried and it's his party that is the pro-gun of the two)
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:2)
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you really just claim Japan hasn't had dictators?
In modern times. Please, tell us whom you consider a dictator, so we can have a good laugh. Tojo?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely if guns were useful for overthrowing a corrupt government, the January 6th insurgency would have succeeded. Those guys brought other weapons like mace, but not guns. Seems that they figured if it came down to a shootout, they would lose.
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:2)
He said dictator, not dick taker.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He wanted to be, though, and so did his followers. He still could be, if they get their way.
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:5, Insightful)
Things to keep in mind about the 2020 Election.
Trump may have lost but can, and by all accounts will, run again in 2024.
Trumps lose in several Republican controlled states was by a very slim margin.
Those Republican controlled states that were expected to go Trump and instead went Biden have since pushed laws into effect that will make it easier for Trump, or any Republican to win the State. The laws range from simple over the top voter ID requirements on mail in votes that make it easier declare a vote invalid to allowing the state's senate to disregard the popular vote and simply instruct the Electoral representatives to vote for who ever that states Senate decides.
When a poisonous snake leaves your sight you don't ignore the fact that it is still nearby and can return again later.
If you don't think that if Trump gets back into the Oval office in 2024 he will do whatever he can to ensure he will stay in the White house indefinitely this time you have not been paying attention.
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Coup is not over.
The focus has shifted to building doubt in future elections and changing the voting rules to be more restrictive. Only allow the right voters to vote.
You forget that before the 3rd Reich, there was the Beer Hall Putsch. These people are still continuing and will work towards getting what they want until they either burn out or accomplish their goal. Any time we merely poke fun, or downplay the actions of these fascists, we play right into their hands.
It can and probably will happen h
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>but I don't understand why Trump is not in prison for treason or sedition
That's easy to answer. Money.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the UK doesn't you fucking twat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an American, I don't watch CNN and we don't have a vested interest in your politics over here. From the outside, Jan 6 looked really bad. Why can't you see that your guy lied over and over again about a stolen election with no proof and then tried to overthrow your democracy? Why don't you see that your Republican party has become a party of dishonourable liars, standing for nothing but cronyism and spite?
Re: Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, for the wisdom of someone who never experienced mortar fire... among other things.
This tech has already led to a false conviction (Score:5, Informative)
Oh well, loud sounds + fishing net attached to long pole = FREE Drone
Maybe not a conviction, but wrongful imprisonment (Score:4, Informative)
Yes evidence provided by the ShotSpotter system was used in a wrongful conviction somewhat recently. Apparently it was used as the basis of building a case against an innocent man, who was eventually released from prison a year later. Humans (prosecutors, police) lazily rely too much on technology. ShotSpotter doesn't identify shooters, it just flags a location of a likely gunshot. Adding a video drone should improve things, as it would allow for quicker collection of visual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How on earth didn't this argument get the "evidence" thrown out in court? I would have thought this tech was never meant to provide evidence, it's just something to guide officers to trouble spots.
If it is the recent ShotSpotter case that I read about, the police had them "massage" the data to change the results to incriminate their suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Civilization doesn't work well like that.
Re: (Score:2)
What could go wrong? (Score:2)
"Attention Citizen! Gunshots were detected coming from your vicinity. Drop all weapons - you have 20 seconds to comply."
This tech has been thoroughly debunked (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't work.
Not reliably. Not yet.
But better to dispatch a drone and maybe catch video of a perp running. Or document a false positive. The alternative is to dispatch cops in 5 to 10 minutes and have them decide to arrest the first suspicious person* they see.
*Dark skinned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This tech has been thoroughly debunked (Score:4)
I have no idea why anyone believes this is going to alter the general posture of law enforcement. It's just one more tool in the increasingly terrifying toolbelt.
Not just rough them up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point (Score:2)
Re: I think you're missing the point (Score:2)
epidemic of overpolicing
Or they could resist the urge to intervene and (as they do in Seattle) wait until someone reports a dead body. Statisticslly, that wouldn't change the crime distribution numbers much. And victims are already dead, so why the urgency?
Re:This tech has been thoroughly debunked (Score:4, Interesting)
Not reliably. Not yet.
I've always thought of promissory technology like a modern-day folk religion.
Statements like this, for example, are nothing less than prophecy. I'm not talking about a general belief that technology will continue to improve, but the highly specific "this exact technology will be created" kind of claims. While they rarely offer specific dates, these predictions almost always come with an upper bound like "by the end of next year" or "within 10 years".
Of course, these predictions very rarely come true, but there is no shortage of charlatans and grifters who are willing to fleece the faithful.
Some are even promising immortality. Not just medical immortality like the cryogenics of the past, but a glorious video game afterlife once you've uploaded yourself to the cloud. Ray Kurzweil will be happy to tell you all about it.
It's not all visions of paradise. The devil is real (or will be soon) and he will seek revenge not just on those who tried to stop his creation, but all who knew but did nothing to help bring him about. So dangerous is this demon that one group even banned any and all discussion of Roku's Basilisk out of fear that they may find themselves on the receiving end of his wrath.
Apparently, fear of Roku's Basilisk caused some people severe anxiety. There were even reports of nervous breakdowns. I once heard the term "dogmagenic disorder" used to describe mental health problems caused by bad theology. Apparently, atheism doesn't grant one immunity.
I say all this in the hope that we'll be more cautious when we hear about claims like this. Faith in this gunshot detection nonsense has caused real harm to real people [apnews.com]. It's even been used deceptively, with one company manipulating the data [vice.com] to match what the police wanted it to say.
Nonsense like this is no different than thosedosing rods sold to detect land mines [nytimes.com]. People think technology is magic, so selling magic as technology is really easy. We need to constantly be on guard.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I used to work in the water industry, some people used to swear by dosing rods. We were producing cutting edge technology to find escaping water, but even some of our support guys swore that in the right hands the dosing rod could find the leak just as well as our kit.
It's amazing what people will put their faith in after a few dubious demonstrations.
Thought Slime on YouTube (Score:4, Interesting)
Atheism isn't going to make you immune to this kind of mental illness because all atheism is is not believing in a god. You can and many people are atheists while still believing in the supernatural. Many pagans for example are atheists because they don't believe in any God just in a generic magic Force.
To me the real problem is encouragement in any sort of magic thinking. In the belief that there are systems that can't be understood. Fundamentally that's what supernatural is. It's a system that cannot ever fully be understood. Something that is impervious to critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
In the belief that there are systems that can't be understood.
I'm more worried about the opposite of that -- the belief that all systems are already understood. More generally, the arrogance that comes from an unwarranted confidence in our present understanding.
The reality is that we still live in a universe filled with mystery. That makes some people deeply uncomfortable. Sometimes they react to that with magical thinking, sometimes with a rejection of anything that they can't immediately apprehend. I've seen people on this site insist that quantum mechanics can
They're the same thing (Score:2)
You won't generally find anti-science on the side of pro-science. What you will find are people who misunderstand what science is. People who only know science from pop-sci news articles. The absolute core of science and the scientific method is that any hypothesis has to be falsifiable. There has to be room f
Re: (Score:2)
In any case it's magical thinking. Belief without understanding.
There's an interesting definition. This would mean that we're all guilty of magical thinking and that we have no hope of rising above it. It's a little pessimistic for a thread that started off with wide-eyed optimism.
You won't generally find anti-science on the side of pro-science.
I see it far more often. It's a little disturbing, to be honest. There are some absolutely insane things out there from the "pro-science" people.
What you will find are people who misunderstand what science is.
The "anti-science" people think they're following the science as well. I don't know that you can meaningfully tell the difference between the two
Re: (Score:2)
one group even banned any and all discussion of Roku's Basilisk
Facebook/Meta? Because failure to enroll and participate within the strictures of the system will get you banned and effectively make you a non-person in our society.
Better sign up for an account now. You have been warned.
Re: (Score:2)
Cluefullness fail (Score:2)
Cause that was never supposed to happen again. At least that was what they said.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so you think the conversation went something like this?
Hitler: I will create the perfect society! ... hold my beer.
Israel:
So basically a reverse Godwin? I think I have heard of everything now.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so you think the conversation went something like this?
Hitler: I will create the perfect society!
... hold my beer.
Israel:
All things considered that seems to sum it up well.
And gunshots to the source of drones (Score:1)
Someone's got money to burn sending drones into territory where no single road sign doesn't have at least a dozen bullet holes in it...
And so it begins... (Score:3)
Small drones with audio equipment capable of imitating gunshots available in three, two, one...
Re: (Score:2)
That's very difficult to do with audio equipment as it turns out, which is why simulators are used.
Re: (Score:2)
Why complicate things? Just go for small drones with guns.
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL. I like the way you think. For a safer alternative, a starter's pistol.
Re: (Score:2)
Idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Data seems to suggest that this would work. I fear that it'll take a generation raised under the constant threat of a mass shooting before we'll make real progress though.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, while your theory about young people ostensibly under threat of mass shooting (statistically they've got many,
Re: (Score:3)
And other data suggests a mass confiscation program would go very badly.
What data would that be? I seem to remember Australia disarmament went very smoothly.
Re: (Score:2)
And other data suggests a mass confiscation program would go very badly.
What data would that be? I seem to remember Australia disarmament went very smoothly.
The battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775 came to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, genius, the Australian National Firearms Agreement happened in 1996.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You act like there's no difference between a guy with a gun and a guy with a knife.
Given the choice, I'll take the threat of mass stabbings over mass shootings any day. So would you.
When I was in school, just about every boy carried a knife his pocket. Not once was anyone stabbed, neither randomly nor in a fight. I can guarantee that the same wouldn't have been true had most of us carried guns instead.
Don't give me that "if everyone carried, we'd all be more polite" nonsense either. Living in constant f
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's a difference, and I agree with what you wrote. But in response to these questions above:
It makes sense that less guns would result in less gun violence, and there this research validating this idea. But...
1) the US non-firearm murder rate is still higher than comparable countries, and if there are less guns some of those murders would happen a different way;
2) violent crime rates in the US have generally decreased [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What if you do not give guns to everybody? Could that make society safer?
So you are suggesting that without firearms, the physically strong would have less advantage over the physically weak? How does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
Awww, don't rain on his parade. He can dream, can't he?
An idea I have had: drone companions (Score:2, Interesting)
Say you are walking home alone at night. You are worried. Imagine being able to make a phone call and a drone walks you home. The drone could also record your entire walk, so anyone who messes you would know they are being recorded, and if you do scream for help it calls for backup: multiple drones come to record the situation and contact the police.
The drones should not be equipped with weapons (that would pretty dystopian). They just record and communicate. To me this is better than a big brother recordi
Re: (Score:2)
Guns save lives (Score:2)
More automated racism (Score:3, Informative)
ShotSpotter is already a racist endeavour: https://www.aclu.org/news/priv... [aclu.org]
ShotSpotter gives a lot of false positives, and tends to be deployed in areas of Black or other ethnic minority population. That then leads to "ShotSpotter says there's a lot of gunfire in the ethnic neighbourhood" and leads to more aggressive policing of that neighbourhood.
Then corrupt Police departments ask ShotSpotter's manufacturer to classify more sounds as gunshots, so more policing can be justified: https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]
(It is, de facto, corrupt for law enforcement to request anyone to alter their evidence to be more favourable to the law enforcement.)
ShotSpotter isn't deployed to richer, whiter neighbourhoods and so they don't get more aggressive policing and a misleading reputation.
This is using badly designed technology to create structural racism.
How this will turn out (Score:2)
1) Troll plants gunshot recordings around the neighborhood in the hopes of wearing out the drone system.
2) Police will send a preemptive strike leveling the whole block.
3) The commanding officer is exonerated from all guilt while the troll is hanged for felony murder.
I'm sure they can correct the drones (Score:2)
arm it (Score:2)
Equip the drones with air to ground missiles.
Another Excuse to Spy On People (Score:2)
Skeet shooting as a service (SSaaS) (Score:2)
Does it keep sending more drones once you shoot the first one down? Do the drones do aerobatics to at least make it interesting or do they just fly along a predictable path?
Re: (Score:2)