3 ms·

I know you're semi-trolling (and I kinda agree they will definitely eventually use these for things that are "illegal" like grills and speed checks, etc.) BUT:

by nlh 2y ago

I know you're semi-trolling (and I kinda agree they will definitely eventually use these for things that are "illegal" like grills and speed checks, etc.) BUT: Let's think of the positives here. If a 911 call comes in and it will take 5-8 mins to get an officer on the scene but 90 seconds to get a drone there to see what's happening, is that really a bad idea? I think the plan isn't to stop using officers - it's to get a drone on scene so the officers are better prepared when they arrive.

wahnfrieden 2y ago
Do you understand the current differential between NYPD capability and action taken? You need to understand that NYPD and cops in general aren’t primarily challenged in their service by their means to execute on it (though you can also find measures suggesting so, and thus needing more funding and powers) For ex they put a load of cops in the subway system, at huge cost, and the results were roughly the same level of crime given overall crime rates falling (and falling just slightly), with no evidence available of increased presence preventing crime, seemingly no impact, except for catching more fare evasion (recouping single digit percent of cost of the program). It was celebrated in gov and by the police as a success and they’re continuing their program. They use the program to divert a proliferation of these fare evasion cops stationed all over the city to other things like emergent protest suppression outside the subways. To talk about “zero second” extreme case police response capabilities.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  How is this related to their comment? A drone that can start recording crucial evidence before police arrive could absolutely be a deciding factor in having enough evidence to charge or convict someone.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    It’s a case study of what (nypd) police are capable of and achieve when they have zero second response time and surveillance capabilities And what the public understands the cost to go toward and why versus what the resulting day to day and bigger picture actions are as a result of the greater numbers and powers gained over the public
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    My point in the GP comment is that "recording crucial evidence" does very little to actually stop or prevent crime. It might help after the fact if not for all the policies around releasing serial criminals and not prosecuting "minor" crimes. In practice, though, the police generally show up after the crime has happened and take statements. In some places outside of NYC, they actually use that information to catch people and prosecute them. In NYC it goes into a black hole. I am sure the idea they had when they bought these things is the drone carrying a speaker and saying "Police, drop the gun," and the armed suspect will magically drop the gun, but we all know that's not going to happen. The use I can see is chasing people who run on foot, but there are a lot of problems with that. They can just go into a building to escape, run around a couple of corners, or even just stand there until the real cops arrive and continue to evade arrest the old fashioned way.
- Borealid 2y ago
  Unfortunately, you can't prove the program did not work. If I purchase a can of alligator repellent spray, and after using it I am attacked by one alligator, that isn't proof the spray failed. If I were to have failed to use the spray, it's possible I would have been attacked by FOUR alligators. In other words, absent an experiment with a control you can't draw conclusions about the success or failure of a dissuasionary program because you don't know how many things were dissuaded.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    You’re welcome to look up the program and the evaluations of its success that don’t come from police and ex-police govt sources and see for yourself. Your impossible standard is useless for evaluating police investment
    - Borealid 2y ago
      I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy in saying "crime rates did not decline faster than elsewhere, therefore the investment was unsuccessful". That observation, alone, doesn't prove anything about the impact had by the program.
      - wahnfrieden 2y ago
        those weren't my words. anyway I added additional clarification to appease
pclmulqdq 2y ago
The only things stopping the NYPD from sending an officer to any location in the city within ~90 seconds are their own cowardice and laziness. The NYPD has an incredible level of capability to do things. They just don't think your life (or your stuff) is worth using it. Also, the NYPD's average response time is now over 15 minutes.
- inkeddeveloper 2y ago
  Billions of dollars. I’d love to see an audit of the NYPD.
psychlops 2y ago
You mean potential positives. It's not difficult to imagine police doing all sorts of amazing things. But the reality of costs and safety keeps those ideas in fantasy land. In your example, costs and safety would mandate that the 90 seconds would first be spent determining whether an officer is needed then an additional 5-8 minutes will be needed to respond. There will be fewer beat officers as they will need to hire a crew of drone operators.
sandworm101 2y ago
New police tech always follows a pattern. They say it is to improve existing proceedures, to make them faster/safer/better, but in the end the tech breaks free of old paradigms and gets used in the "bad" ways everyone predicted. Tasers were meant to be used only instead of guns, but now are used on non-threatening people who simply refuse orders. Speed/traffic cameras were to free up officers for other tasks, but cops do as much traffic enforcement as ever before. The cameras are used by companies for revenue. Drones are pitched as being the faster responce, going ahead of officers on foot. In a few years they will be the only response. They will be hovering outside our bedroom windows scouting for wrongdoing. It is the tech cops dont want, the stuff we must force upon them such as dash/body cameras, that tends to promote the public good in the long run.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  > They say it is to improve existing proceedures, to make them faster/safer/better, but in the end the tech breaks free of old paradigms and gets used in the "bad" ways everyone predicted. This new technology will improve existing procedures. How can you oppose it? This new procedure will use existing technologies. How can you oppose it?
chrisandchris 2y ago
But shouldn't you still deploy a police officer at the same time in case it is actually something? If you send a drone and wait for a dispatch, you wasted several minutes of time just to make sure there is something.
namlem 2y ago
Ultimately what matters most is what incentives the police have. If they have bad incentives, fancy new tech won't actually be used for public benefits

by nlh 2y ago

wahnfrieden 2y ago

Do you understand the current differential between NYPD capability and action taken? You need to understand that NYPD and cops in general aren’t primarily challenged in their service by their means to execute on it (though you can also find measures suggesting so, and thus needing more funding and powers) For ex they put a load of cops in the subway system, at huge cost, and the results were roughly the same level of crime given overall crime rates falling (and falling just slightly), with no evidence available of increased presence preventing crime, seemingly no impact, except for catching more fare evasion (recouping single digit percent of cost of the program). It was celebrated in gov and by the police as a success and they’re continuing their program. They use the program to divert a proliferation of these fare evasion cops stationed all over the city to other things like emergent protest suppression outside the subways. To talk about “zero second” extreme case police response capabilities.

ranger_danger 2y ago
How is this related to their comment? A drone that can start recording crucial evidence before police arrive could absolutely be a deciding factor in having enough evidence to charge or convict someone.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  It’s a case study of what (nypd) police are capable of and achieve when they have zero second response time and surveillance capabilities And what the public understands the cost to go toward and why versus what the resulting day to day and bigger picture actions are as a result of the greater numbers and powers gained over the public
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  My point in the GP comment is that "recording crucial evidence" does very little to actually stop or prevent crime. It might help after the fact if not for all the policies around releasing serial criminals and not prosecuting "minor" crimes. In practice, though, the police generally show up after the crime has happened and take statements. In some places outside of NYC, they actually use that information to catch people and prosecute them. In NYC it goes into a black hole. I am sure the idea they had when they bought these things is the drone carrying a speaker and saying "Police, drop the gun," and the armed suspect will magically drop the gun, but we all know that's not going to happen. The use I can see is chasing people who run on foot, but there are a lot of problems with that. They can just go into a building to escape, run around a couple of corners, or even just stand there until the real cops arrive and continue to evade arrest the old fashioned way.
Borealid 2y ago
Unfortunately, you can't prove the program did not work. If I purchase a can of alligator repellent spray, and after using it I am attacked by one alligator, that isn't proof the spray failed. If I were to have failed to use the spray, it's possible I would have been attacked by FOUR alligators. In other words, absent an experiment with a control you can't draw conclusions about the success or failure of a dissuasionary program because you don't know how many things were dissuaded.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  You’re welcome to look up the program and the evaluations of its success that don’t come from police and ex-police govt sources and see for yourself. Your impossible standard is useless for evaluating police investment
  - Borealid 2y ago
    I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy in saying "crime rates did not decline faster than elsewhere, therefore the investment was unsuccessful". That observation, alone, doesn't prove anything about the impact had by the program.
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      those weren't my words. anyway I added additional clarification to appease

pclmulqdq 2y ago

The only things stopping the NYPD from sending an officer to any location in the city within ~90 seconds are their own cowardice and laziness. The NYPD has an incredible level of capability to do things. They just don't think your life (or your stuff) is worth using it. Also, the NYPD's average response time is now over 15 minutes.

inkeddeveloper 2y ago
Billions of dollars. I’d love to see an audit of the NYPD.

psychlops 2y ago

You mean potential positives. It's not difficult to imagine police doing all sorts of amazing things. But the reality of costs and safety keeps those ideas in fantasy land. In your example, costs and safety would mandate that the 90 seconds would first be spent determining whether an officer is needed then an additional 5-8 minutes will be needed to respond. There will be fewer beat officers as they will need to hire a crew of drone operators.

sandworm101 2y ago

New police tech always follows a pattern. They say it is to improve existing proceedures, to make them faster/safer/better, but in the end the tech breaks free of old paradigms and gets used in the "bad" ways everyone predicted. Tasers were meant to be used only instead of guns, but now are used on non-threatening people who simply refuse orders. Speed/traffic cameras were to free up officers for other tasks, but cops do as much traffic enforcement as ever before. The cameras are used by companies for revenue. Drones are pitched as being the faster responce, going ahead of officers on foot. In a few years they will be the only response. They will be hovering outside our bedroom windows scouting for wrongdoing. It is the tech cops dont want, the stuff we must force upon them such as dash/body cameras, that tends to promote the public good in the long run.

pseudalopex 2y ago
> They say it is to improve existing proceedures, to make them faster/safer/better, but in the end the tech breaks free of old paradigms and gets used in the "bad" ways everyone predicted. This new technology will improve existing procedures. How can you oppose it? This new procedure will use existing technologies. How can you oppose it?

chrisandchris 2y ago

But shouldn't you still deploy a police officer at the same time in case it is actually something? If you send a drone and wait for a dispatch, you wasted several minutes of time just to make sure there is something.

namlem 2y ago

Ultimately what matters most is what incentives the police have. If they have bad incentives, fancy new tech won't actually be used for public benefits