4 ms·
Sorry to be a downer but it will happen if it hasn't already, and the biggest reason is cost savings which is pretty hard to argue against when the budget is up
by TheChaplain 5y ago
Sorry to be a downer but it will happen if it hasn't already, and the biggest reason is cost savings which is pretty hard to argue against when the budget is up for discussion at the local gov.
Having drones patrol large areas, running plates and face-matching against a warrant database is much quicker and cheaper than having people doing it. They're also cheaper than helicopters to follow fleeing suspects, and a bit harder to detect.
I agree though it's a huge privacy issue here, but when it comes down to money it'll be a tough fight.
- JCharante 5y ago> Having drones patrol large areas, running plates and face-matching against a warrant database is much quicker and cheaper than having people doing it. Why would it be cheaper than metal poles with cameras attached to them? Surely stationary devices will be cheaper and safer.
- badjeans 5y agoI guess a drone can just land on a roof (or even street-level)? Basically a battery powered camera that can be deployed very quickly to an area of interest.
- jMyles 5y agoI have no problem with any of this, and I'm a full-blown police abolitionist. I love drones and their potential for public safety assurances. However, it's a completely different discussion when we talk about arming them.