3 ms·

Yay, and the price would only be ubiquitous surveillance of everyone 24/7. What a steal!

Angostura 3y ago
How does follow, from the police deploying a drone to quickly react to a call? I'm all for pointing out problema, but tht sounds like catastrophising.
- tamimio 3y ago
  Criminal shooting the drone down, while non-criminals that are under surveillance won’t. A police person cannot look inside of your house without a warrant, while a flying drone can have a 4K of what’s inside. You shouldn’t be Identified (asked for an ID) without breaking the law, while a drone can record and facial recognize you without committing any offense. List goes on
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > A police person cannot look inside of your house without a warrant, while a flying drone can have a 4K of what’s inside. A drone can see into your windows, but you don’t have the expectation of privacy through your windows in the first place; for instance, you can be charged with indecent exposure for being naked in your own house if the blinds are open.[1] > You shouldn’t be Identified (asked for an ID) without breaking the law, while a drone can record and facial recognize you without committing any offense. It’s not generally based on whether you actually broke the law, but whether the police have “reasonable suspicion” that you did. The police can be reasonably suspicious of someone who, it turns out, did not break the law. Also, once you’re in public, anyone with a phone can record you and upload it to a social media network, most of which probably have more extensive facial recognition databases than the police. One thing the police do have though, is that the dash cams in their patrol vehicles can scan license plates and alert them if a vehicle was reported stolen or if the registered owner has warrants. [1] https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/police-provide-privacy-law-insight-following-indecent-exposure-arrest/amp/ https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/police-provide...
kube-system 3y ago
Using shotspotter to dispatch them would be a limit on the way video surveillance is done now, which is to just leave them in fixed locations to record 24/7.
ethanbond 3y ago
Realistically as the price of this technology goes down and as crime continues to exist, the only actual safeguards against ubiquitous surveillance will be laws. There's no reason you couldn't have the system proposed and have extremely strong laws around the use and retention of the acquired video, e.g. the captured video can only be used in cases against the people who triggered the initial activation. Inconvenient but there's literally no other way for this to go. Laws are our only hope -- technology will continue on its march.
- ender341341 3y ago
  I had this conversation with someone recently around ubiquitous traffic cameras to help enforce speed limits (in Washington the police seem to have basically stopped enforcing speed laws it seems and people are getting kinda crazy so we were discussing alternative options like tracking when you get on the freeway and off and calculating average speed as an option), the problem is it's easy to write the law today in a pretty acceptable way "Data can only be stored for x-hours unless speeding is detected then it's recorded as part of the record for the ticket", but the problem is once the system is deployed it's much easier for law makers to then slowly roll back those protections, and some of them aren't even that ridiculous, like tying it to amber/silver alerts, most wouldn't object there, but eventually they'll try for "we want to keep records around so we can get a list of who was driving in the area of a crime", and that'll start with a warrant but we've seen how willing prosecutors are to completely ignore violations of that. Somewhat rant-y I know, but just kinda a cautionary around the "well we can trust the government to keep laws as initially written and not remove all the parts that are there to protect are rights".
  - Sai_ 3y ago
    Put such protections and limitations in the constitution and make it harder to subvert. “The right of a citizen to use public spaces without causing the creation of a long term, indexable, searchable, hashable record of their presence shall not be curtailed.” Side note - I’m not even an American citizen but can evoke the style of the second amendment without much trouble. That’s soft power!
sitzkrieg 3y ago
not to mention shot spotters don't work
- kube-system 3y ago
  Define "work". They do indicate where loud noises are happening. That's might not be an actionable place to send an officer 15 minutes from now, which is the status quo, but it might be a great place to have drone video in 60 seconds.
  - thorncorona 3y ago
    > They do indicate where loud noises are happening. The point of a shot spotter is to tell the PD where the loud noises are happening. Which the shot spotter can't do effectively. If you wanted to know something was happening, people already phone in when gunshots are heard.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Right, that is the point of the above suggestion of adding fast-follow video to the equation. * If all know is that a loud noise happened, in a general area, you don't know much. * If you know that a loud noise happened, and you see a video of kids lighting off fireworks, you have a pretty good idea that it wasn't gunshots, and that it isn't worth sending humans. * If you know that a loud noise happened, and you see people with guns or people lying in the street, you may have a good reason to send a human response.
    - zone411 3y ago
      This study addresses your claim directly: https://academic.oup.com/policing/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/police/paac097/7100381 https://academic.oup.com/policing/article-abstract/doi/10.10... "Findings indicate GDT [gunshot detection technology] generates time savings and increases spatial precision as compared to CFS [9-1-1 calls for service]."
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Shot spotter has a lot of false positives, but the basic logic of multiple units triangulating on the origin of the sound is valid. Physically that is; I'm not a fan of the company.

How does follow, from the police deploying a drone to quickly react to a call? I'm all for pointing out problema, but tht sounds like catastrophising.

tamimio 3y ago
Criminal shooting the drone down, while non-criminals that are under surveillance won’t. A police person cannot look inside of your house without a warrant, while a flying drone can have a 4K of what’s inside. You shouldn’t be Identified (asked for an ID) without breaking the law, while a drone can record and facial recognize you without committing any offense. List goes on
- philwelch 3y ago
  > A police person cannot look inside of your house without a warrant, while a flying drone can have a 4K of what’s inside. A drone can see into your windows, but you don’t have the expectation of privacy through your windows in the first place; for instance, you can be charged with indecent exposure for being naked in your own house if the blinds are open.[1] > You shouldn’t be Identified (asked for an ID) without breaking the law, while a drone can record and facial recognize you without committing any offense. It’s not generally based on whether you actually broke the law, but whether the police have “reasonable suspicion” that you did. The police can be reasonably suspicious of someone who, it turns out, did not break the law. Also, once you’re in public, anyone with a phone can record you and upload it to a social media network, most of which probably have more extensive facial recognition databases than the police. One thing the police do have though, is that the dash cams in their patrol vehicles can scan license plates and alert them if a vehicle was reported stolen or if the registered owner has warrants. [1] https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/police-provide-privacy-law-insight-following-indecent-exposure-arrest/amp/ https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/police-provide...

kube-system 3y ago

Using shotspotter to dispatch them would be a limit on the way video surveillance is done now, which is to just leave them in fixed locations to record 24/7.

ethanbond 3y ago

Realistically as the price of this technology goes down and as crime continues to exist, the only actual safeguards against ubiquitous surveillance will be laws. There's no reason you couldn't have the system proposed and have extremely strong laws around the use and retention of the acquired video, e.g. the captured video can only be used in cases against the people who triggered the initial activation. Inconvenient but there's literally no other way for this to go. Laws are our only hope -- technology will continue on its march.

ender341341 3y ago
I had this conversation with someone recently around ubiquitous traffic cameras to help enforce speed limits (in Washington the police seem to have basically stopped enforcing speed laws it seems and people are getting kinda crazy so we were discussing alternative options like tracking when you get on the freeway and off and calculating average speed as an option), the problem is it's easy to write the law today in a pretty acceptable way "Data can only be stored for x-hours unless speeding is detected then it's recorded as part of the record for the ticket", but the problem is once the system is deployed it's much easier for law makers to then slowly roll back those protections, and some of them aren't even that ridiculous, like tying it to amber/silver alerts, most wouldn't object there, but eventually they'll try for "we want to keep records around so we can get a list of who was driving in the area of a crime", and that'll start with a warrant but we've seen how willing prosecutors are to completely ignore violations of that. Somewhat rant-y I know, but just kinda a cautionary around the "well we can trust the government to keep laws as initially written and not remove all the parts that are there to protect are rights".
- Sai_ 3y ago
  Put such protections and limitations in the constitution and make it harder to subvert. “The right of a citizen to use public spaces without causing the creation of a long term, indexable, searchable, hashable record of their presence shall not be curtailed.” Side note - I’m not even an American citizen but can evoke the style of the second amendment without much trouble. That’s soft power!

sitzkrieg 3y ago

not to mention shot spotters don't work

kube-system 3y ago
Define "work". They do indicate where loud noises are happening. That's might not be an actionable place to send an officer 15 minutes from now, which is the status quo, but it might be a great place to have drone video in 60 seconds.
- thorncorona 3y ago
  > They do indicate where loud noises are happening. The point of a shot spotter is to tell the PD where the loud noises are happening. Which the shot spotter can't do effectively. If you wanted to know something was happening, people already phone in when gunshots are heard.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Right, that is the point of the above suggestion of adding fast-follow video to the equation. * If all know is that a loud noise happened, in a general area, you don't know much. * If you know that a loud noise happened, and you see a video of kids lighting off fireworks, you have a pretty good idea that it wasn't gunshots, and that it isn't worth sending humans. * If you know that a loud noise happened, and you see people with guns or people lying in the street, you may have a good reason to send a human response.
  - zone411 3y ago
    This study addresses your claim directly: https://academic.oup.com/policing/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/police/paac097/7100381 https://academic.oup.com/policing/article-abstract/doi/10.10... "Findings indicate GDT [gunshot detection technology] generates time savings and increases spatial precision as compared to CFS [9-1-1 calls for service]."
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Shot spotter has a lot of false positives, but the basic logic of multiple units triangulating on the origin of the sound is valid. Physically that is; I'm not a fan of the company.