Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime

New Policing System Will Send Drones To the Source of Gunshots (newatlas.com) 170

Posted by BeauHD from the straight-out-of-a-sci-fi-novel dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Policing System Will Send Drones To the Source of Gunshots More

New Policing System Will Send Drones To the Source of Gunshots

Comments Filter:

  • Hope they have a large supply of drones (Score:4, Funny)

    by ClueHammer ( 6261830 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @10:14PM (#62107961)
    The series of events: Gunshots, send drone, drone is shot down, repeat until they run of of bullets or drones.

    • Chicago will need alot just to cover all shootings with one 1 drone

    • Clearly you need those tiny bugs from Stanislaw Lem's The Invincible.

    • How long before they mount guns on the drones? Right?

    • Training a drone to avoid fire might be relatively straightforward depending on how quickly they can move. AI should be able to pick up when a gun is pointed at it, and there is no reason for a drone to just float in one place.
    • Think the average hoodie has the marksmanship skills (or even the inclination) to shoot a moving drone at 50-100m in the middle of a gun fight?

    • 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)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Nice joke to open the discussion.

      Or do you sell bulletproof drones? Might have an ulterior motive.

  • This tech has already led to a false conviction (Score:5, Informative)

    by bubblyceiling ( 7940768 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @10:17PM (#62107971)
    This is the same company that was in the news for a false conviction.

    Oh well, loud sounds + fishing net attached to long pole = FREE Drone

    • Maybe not a conviction, but wrongful imprisonment (Score:4, Informative)

      by virtig01 ( 414328 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @11:17PM (#62108111)

      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.

      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Agripa ( 139780 )

          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.

    • Came for this. "drones sent out when X happens" . . . . (any number of items in step 2) . . . . profit!

  • "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)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @10:22PM (#62107991)
    Not the drones but the shot detection. It doesn't work. It's similar to drug sniffing dogs where it's used to get search warrants when they really shouldn't be approved. It basically gives the cops carte blanche the search damn near anywhere and anyone. Worse it's been several convictions on the basis of this tech as evidence that are highly suspect. Google around a bit and you'll find at best a scam and it worse another tool in the toolbox used to let cops do things we don't want them to do

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      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.

      • LOL, like they're going to dispatch cops.

      • Re:This tech has been thoroughly debunked (Score:4)

        by LeeLynx ( 6219816 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @11:11PM (#62108097)
        Right. Now they will send a drone to identify and track the first 'suspicious' person *it* sees so that cops can go rough that person up at their leisure. It's a great labor-saving advance in the field of police brutality. Huzzah!

        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.
        • but bust them for any and all crimes, no matter how petty. One of if not the main reason black folks show up more in crime statistics is that they're heavily over policed. So minor stuff a person of more, shall we say, 'fair' complexion might get away with they get nailed to the wall for.
        • We've had this in Minneapolis for years and we've seen nothing of the sort you suggest in relation to ShotSpotter reports.
          • No, your police have definitely been showing more restraint. [fox9.com] It's almost like something happened there to make them a little more gun-shy.
      • they cops will come either way. That's the point. These are suppose to give cops the legal right (aka "probable cause") to go anywhere they want and search anything they want. These are especially bad for black folk, who already face an epidemic (literally, not all epidemics are medical) of over policing.

        • 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)

        by narcc ( 412956 ) on Thursday December 23, 2021 @01:02AM (#62108355) Journal

        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)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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)

          by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday December 23, 2021 @12:35PM (#62109611)
          Has a good video on roku's basilisk. It wasn't banned Because admins thought it was real, they banned it because they were afraid some mentally ill people did and that it might encourage suicidal thoughts.

          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)

            by narcc ( 412956 )

            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

            • In any case it's magical thinking. Belief without understanding. That's because as you're understanding of a topic increases your understanding of how much about the topic you don't know increases.

              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)

                by narcc ( 412956 )

                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)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          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.

    • We've had it in Minneapolis for years and none of what you claim has happened. ShotSpotter doesn't give police the ability to do things as you claim. They don't get a warrant for such. It simply says there may have been a gunshot fired outside in this area, go investigate. That's it. Please, backup your claim with something more than "Go search around and you should be able to find some stuff about it."
  • Between these folks and NSO it is good to see Israeli firms totally not rushing as fast as possible towards a dystopian society.

    Cause that was never supposed to happen again. At least that was what they said.

    • Wait, so you think the conversation went something like this?

      Hitler: I will create the perfect society!
      Israel: ... hold my beer.

      So basically a reverse Godwin? I think I have heard of everything now.

      • Wait, so you think the conversation went something like this?

        Hitler: I will create the perfect society!

        Israel: ... hold my beer.

        All things considered that seems to sum it up well.

  • 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)

    by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @11:07PM (#62108093)

    Small drones with audio equipment capable of imitating gunshots available in three, two, one...

  • Idea (Score:2)

    by Thoron ( 19565 )
    What if you do not give guns to everybody? Could that make society safer?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      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.

      • The data seems to suggest it works if they never really get them in the first place. Once you have more guns than people held by your population, data doesn't really suggest policies aimed at disarming the ones complying with the laws will do much of anything other than leaving them more vulnerable to those who don't. And other data suggests a mass confiscation program would go very badly.
        Further, while your theory about young people ostensibly under threat of mass shooting (statistically they've got many,

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          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)

            by Agripa ( 139780 )

            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)

        by xalqor ( 6762950 )
        Or maybe people find other ways to be violent. Check stabbings in the UK [parliament.uk].

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          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)

            by xalqor ( 6762950 )

            Of course there's a difference, and I agree with what you wrote. But in response to these questions above:

            What if you do not give guns to everybody? Could that make society safer?

            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)

      by Agripa ( 139780 )

      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?

  • 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)

      by kackle ( 910159 )
      It's a good idea on paper. But I think the reality is that all these doorbell cameras everywhere record the crimes, but don't much prevent the idiots from attempting them. And a simple ski mask circumvents.
  • So every shot must be good thing. Why involve the police?

  • More automated racism (Score:3, Informative)

    by nicolaiplum ( 169077 ) on Thursday December 23, 2021 @05:04AM (#62108657)

    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.

  • 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.

  • You know, if they fly to a location but can't find anyone. They will just adjust the software so it finds a group of nuns feeding the homeless and they swoop in and arrest everyone there. I wish that thought was funny but the reality is this will more than often be the result. The drone can't find anyone so they just select someone nearby to be guilty.

  • Equip the drones with air to ground missiles.

  • That's it, get people used to being spied on, all time.

  • 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?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close