> “I just think the idea is terrifically ridiculous,” said Mr. Friedman, the founder and faculty director of the Policing Project at New York University School

> “I just think the idea is terrifically ridiculous,” said Mr. Friedman, the founder and faculty director of the Policing Project at New York University School of Law. “Drones can’t fly through doors. Shooters wear body armor.” Forgetting about the enormous ethical implications, how is this supposed to work technically? The intro image shows what looks like a taser mounted on a quad copter. Friedman seems to have a point. How exactly is a quad copter supposed to get into a locked classroom? I think the answer comes earlier: > In addition to including schools, Axon’s revised plans for Taser-equipped drones also called for the drones to be activated by a system of AI-powered surveillance. The ethics board has long advised Axon against the use of persistent surveillance systems such as this in its products. Sooner or later, this is where it all leads. By the time there's an active shooter, it's too late. Surveillance system will encounter little of the opposition that robotic tasers will. Not that the resistance is that organized or widespread to be begin with. If you're ok with an armed cop on campus, why not an armed drone. The "nothing to hide" argument will no doubt carry the day as it has at every stage along our current trajectory. Stop the criminal before they can act. That's the sane way to deal with violence. I can just hear the howls of righteous disapproval against anyone who questions "the science" on this.