4 ms·
> I thought high-speed chases were often about getting a dangerous driver off the road. Generally you need to prove that a particular person was driving the ve
by runnerup 4y ago
> I thought high-speed chases were often about getting a dangerous driver off the road.
Generally you need to prove that a particular person was driving the vehicle and that can be hard if you find the vehicle at its registered address 3 days later -- "You can't prove it was me driving". It's a lot easier to charge the driver if you remove them from the drivers seat.
However, it's very commonly accepted that police chasing dangerous drivers causes the criminal to drive beyond their abilities and often get into accidents that are fatal to both the criminal and bystanders.
Many jurisdictions have rules/guidelines spelling out when to abort a chase in the interests of public safety.
This GPS dart would allow them to tail the car from a distance beyond visual range so that the driver doesn't drive nearly as insanely, increasing their chances of reaching their destination in one piece, but still allow police to be close behind so that they can prove who was driving.
- rlpb 4y agoSo what we need is a dart with suction legs, a camera and an AI, which crawls over the outside of the car to the windshield and takes pictures of the driver :-)
- usefulcat 4y agoNot to worry, skynet is already working on something better..
- zizee 4y agoPerhaps a high speed drone could do this. The trick would be to deploy something like this safely. That said, I'm not looking forward to the day where drones and AI are part of the standard kit used by police forces. The ability to cheaply surveil people clandestinely as they go about their business does not sound like a future to look forward to.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoThe GPS device paired with a loitering drone or helicopter carrying a sensor pod, streaming a video stream that can play bird's eye video backwards and forwards, should be sufficient to track a suspect. DARPA was doing this with ARGUS in 2013 with a few hundred cellphone camera sensors bolted together; I would assume the state of the art has advanced in a decade. The saying used to be, "you can't outrun Motorola." The new hotness is likely "you can't outrun the surveillance tech stack." https://www.wired.com/story/cities-curb-surveillance-baltimore-police-took-air/ https://www.wired.com/story/cities-curb-surveillance-baltimo... https://www.csoonline.com/article/2223941/darpa-s-unblinking-all-seeing-1-8-gigapixel-camera-stare-on-pbs-rise-of-the-drones.html https://www.csoonline.com/article/2223941/darpa-s-unblinking... https://web.archive.org/web/20130204062029/https://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/Autonomous_Real-time_Ground_Ubiquitous_Surveillance-Imaging_System_(ARGUS-IS).aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20130204062029/https://www.darpa... https://web.archive.org/web/20130226141653/http://www.darpa.mil/uploadedImages/Content/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/Autonomous_Real-time_Ground/Images/full/ARGUS_Mission14_Poster_12-06-0920(rev1)%5B1%5D.JPG https://web.archive.org/web/20130226141653/http://www.darpa....
- mLuby 4y agoWhy do you even need the tracker dart if you have a military drone overhead? Unless they pull some Baby Driver shenanigans in a tunnel, it should be easy to track a car. Might not work well in a few major cities (where they likely have camera nets anyway).
- Balgair 4y agoEven then you have the right to face your accuser in the US. IANAL but I think that you can't call an AI in for cross, nor a robot. Probably depends heavily on jurisdiction though.
- thomascgalvin 4y agoIt seems like a drone with a high quality camera would be useful, as well.