7 ms·
NYPD using drones to check out noisy backyard parties over Labor Day weekend
- kobalsky 3y agoI don't get why they would be checking for large parties, is there a restriction in place?
- someonehere 3y agoI’m wondering if it’s related to the recent recommendations New Yorkers start masking up again (https://www.the-express.com/news/health/110540/new-york-ncovid-variant-Pirola-masks-labor-day https://www.the-express.com/news/health/110540/new-york-ncov...) Remember during lockdowns they didn’t want large crowds for fear of super spreading events? I know we’re not in lockdown but wondering if the drones have some new tech on them to a) determine party sizes, and b) determine if masks are being worn. What better way to train a new AI drone system for crowd gatherings and masking use than Labor Day weekend. Far fetched yes, but we live in weird times where that theory isn’t too far off of the world we live in.
- birdyrooster 3y agoThe police should absolutely use drones if it means getting officers can investigate without misuse of lethal force ever being an option. They are only using it when they would have otherwise sent a squad car or done nothing at all, so this seem like a net benefit for the community.
- phone8675309 3y agoIt is naive to think that the next evolution isn't armed drones, probably excess ones under the 1033 Program of the Defense Logistics Agency, with the excuse that "now decisions to use force can be made without the officer in physical danger" and "now those decisions can be made by a group of people instead of one officer".
- SenAnder 3y agoIt's foolish to think unarmed drones are less dangerous. They'll log your face, the faces of your friends, record audio, and next time you enter a government building/airport/other high-security area, you are arrested for spreading misinformation & hate speech/violating curfew/social distancing, reported to your employer for breaking your NDA/discussing your salary/organizing a union/conspiring to interfere with a business, etc. Blunt instruments like guns and tear gas are the least dangerous parts of tyranny.
- birdyrooster 3y agoAre you kidding me? The moment this country outlaws misinformation I am gone. You've made quite the leap and I don't think it is helpful. Also, the guns are the way they typically kill people and that is definitely nothing to scoff at.
- SenAnder 3y agoI'm from Europe, and there are a number of laws against misinformation and hate-speech already [0,1,2,3,4]. Notably, Scotland bans hate speech in private homes too [5,6]. Free speech protections in the rest of the world are even worse, China and Russia the usual examples. As hallowed as the 1st amendment is, it's dangerous to rely solely on legal protections, especially as public sentiment has started to turn against free speech in the US as well [7,8,9]. Ignoring misinformation and hate speech, what will happen when employment contracts or terms of use start to further limit our behavior? While it has a good record on free speech, the US has a disturbing trend of treating contracts as sacrosanct. [0] https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/13/now-the-police-are-arresting-12-year-olds-for-hate-speech/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/13/now-the-police-are-... [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/23/1094485542/eu-law-big-tech-hate-speech-disinformation https://www.npr.org/2022/04/23/1094485542/eu-law-big-tech-ha... [2] https://www.legaldive.com/news/digital-services-act-dsa-eu-misinformation-law-propaganda-compliance-facebook-gdpr/691657/ https://www.legaldive.com/news/digital-services-act-dsa-eu-m... [3] https://thebulletin.org/premium/2021-05/countries-have-more-than-100-laws-on-the-books-to-combat-misinformation-how-well-do-they-work/ https://thebulletin.org/premium/2021-05/countries-have-more-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country [5] https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1352957/snp-news-scotland-hate-crime-law-humza-yousaf-holyrood-latest-nicola-sturgeon https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1352957/snp-news-sco... [6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-563... [7] https://www.thefire.org/news/new-survey-reveals-americans-attitudes-campus-free-speech https://www.thefire.org/news/new-survey-reveals-americans-at... [8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/most-americans-support-freedom-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/most-amer... [9] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/20/hate-speech https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
- jrm4 3y agoThis only "seems like a net benefit for the community" in the ridiculously hypothetical and whitewashed world in which the NYPD always does right by its citizens, especially those of color. Nah.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- birdyrooster 3y agoOkay maybe you are right, I don't know. I just want less people to get hurt.
- ryaneager 3y agoAnd you think giving the police more power will accomplish that?
- brocklobsta 3y agoHmmm. Changes the scope of public view with a bird eye view. Begs a bigger question about property ownership and airspace. How high off the land you own is yours? Is flying a drone over a fence the same as climbing a fence for the officer? I’m all for using technology when proper guardrails are in place to prevent misuse
- euroderf 3y agoDoes an NYPD drone just measure "bulk" noise, or does it become an excuse to smuggle in directional eavesdropping ?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zamalek 3y agoAir rights differ from county to county, and even property to property in some counties. 500ft is a fair ballpark figure. Either way, you don't need to be above a property to spy on it from the air, although I seriously doubt that type of restraint would be exercised by NYPD. A motivated lawyer might be able to get damages for unlawful search - but you'd be venturing into an area, er, volume where there is probably no precedent.
- thefurdrake 3y agoWasn't it the NYPD that bitched and moaned about having public oversight of their drone project because they "couldn't do their jobs while being watched" or something? I swear that was a thing a few years ago but I can't find the quote due to the internet being spammed with numerous clones of this article. Edit/addition: Thoughts of that aside, I am fundamentally okay with the idea of police orgs using drones for something like this. Conceptually. I see this as a preferred outcome to "Annoying bitchy neighbor whines about totally legal backyard party, event #8962376340" where an officer has to physically go to the party, it's some level of disruptive, it wastes the officer's time, it wastes the partygoers' time... As long as the police are willing to provide an itemized list of every drone deployed, available publicly, with exact GPS pathing on an easily-viewed map.
- toss1 3y agoMy first thought is "good"; far lower cost and better allocation of resources. If nothing much, they can just go on toe the next call, if a big problem, they can get more resources on the scene before moving, and the article indicated that these were the intended uses. If course, "use" is doing a lot of lifting here. The questions are if this goes further and turns into "abuse.
- spl757 3y agoThat's a good way to lose an expensive drone. I mean, I defend my airspace. Doesn't everyone?
- belval 3y agoNot sure if joking or not but for better or worse drones are considered aircrafts and under the FAA rules shooting one down can absolutely put you in a lot of trouble.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoWonder how the law would handle training large birds to attack drones.
- dessimus 3y agoDepends how close you are to the Hudson River.
- postalrat 3y agoBut typically doesn't unless you are a career criminal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lazide 3y agoShooting down a NYPD drone because they’re trying to see if you’re having a big party is a good way to become a career criminal. Involuntarily.
- michaelangeho 3y ago[dead]
- diogenes4 3y ago> Potential for abuse exists, but the same can be said of tasers or guns. Given their track record with tasers and guns i'd imagine "inevitability" would be more accurate. Is there any evidence that police presence even reduces crime, let alone potential for terrorist attacks?
- michaelangelho2 3y ago(OP here, made another throwaway since I’m away from my password manager) Yes, the evidence that police reduce crime is dispositive. Even post-2020 NPR admits this: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when... > Williams and his colleagues find adding a new police officer to a city prevents between 0.06 and 0.1 homicides, which means that the average city would need to hire between 10 and 17 new police officers to save one life a year. They estimate that costs taxpayers annually between $1.3 and $2.2 million. The federal government puts the value of a statistical life at around $10 million (Planet Money did a whole episode on how that number was chosen). So, Williams says, from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault. The white-collar meme that more police != less crime has caused hundreds if not thousands of excess deaths and many more excess rapes, robberies, and assaults, mainly within minority populations.
- diogenes4 3y agoSorry, I meant in comparison to every other form of crime reduction (namely, poverty reduction, which comes in many forms). We spent an absolutely insane amount of money on what amounts to one of the world's largest militaries and we still have a much higher crime rate, especially weighted by GDP.
- eggy 3y agoThe number of license plate cameras in Yonkers is growing. A few acquaintances have showed me a speeding ticket for 28 in a 25 mph posted speed limit. 3 mph? Really. You could argue error on the equipment, last calibration, etc...but who has the time. This is a way to fill the city coffers. This article was interesting too from one of, "The Wire" creators: https://www.silive.com/news/2023/08/wire-creator-david-simon-learns-that-nyc-speed-cameras-are-a-con-meant-to-separate-drivers-from-their-money-opinion.html https://www.silive.com/news/2023/08/wire-creator-david-simon...
- lxgr 3y ago> A few acquaintances have showed me a speeding ticket for 28 in a 25 mph posted speed limit. 3 mph? How else are speeding cameras supposed to work? They already include some tolerance for imprecise sensors, as does every car's tachymeter. For every finite actually-enforced speed limit, there's always going to be some discrete value limit for "too fast", and always somebody upset with getting a ticket for being just ever so slightly above that limit.
- tstrimple 3y agoAutomated speeding camera tickets in my state are unenforceable civil fines. Folks in the know just ignore them. It's a tax on suckers driving through the area mostly. There was a whole kerfuffle around the cameras being illegal because they violate the laws on distance notifications required of speed limit changes before sampling the speed, but the city didn't care about that and forced it through pretty quickly regardless. It's clear that these are revenue seeking mechanisms completely detached from road safety.
- JambalayaJim 3y agoEven if the speed cameras don’t have any impact on safety, it’s still a net positive for people living there? Your city government gets a bit more funding. Avoidance of the fine is very easy - just stick to the speed limit. It’s especially nice for people who don’t drive. But the impact of speed cameras is well understood - it does lead to people slowing down. And it turns out speed is incredibly important, even small differences in speed, in the outcome of a car crash.
- fargle 3y agohey if it's my neighbors yard with the out of control party, I'd absolutely let them use my airspace to observe from