4 ms·

None of this makes any sense. You don't justify anything nor do you give any solid reasoning. You just state that this won't help, therefore it's bad. Please a

None of this makes any sense. You don't justify anything nor do you give any solid reasoning. You just state that this won't help, therefore it's bad. Please actually /support/ your claims. Why would police turn off your car instead of simply issuing a ticket electronically? Why would they stop cars speeding instead of issuing an electronic ticket? Please take the time to think about and provide plausible examples instead of this nonsense.

ma2rten 13y ago
From the article: The technology, scheduled for a six-year development timetable, is aimed at bringing dangerous high-speed car chases to an end and to make redundant current stopping techniques such as spiking a vehicle's tyres.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  Right, and the parent poster claims with no support that a) The technology will be removed by all criminals who plan ahead b) Criminals that don't plan ahead are almost always caught c) This technology will be used for minor infractions that are 'ticketable offences' None of this is realistic or supported at all. I gave an example in another post, run-flat tyres defeat spike strips. Why do criminals rarely fit them?
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    Because run-flat tires cost a lot more than removing a chip. Or buying a jammer, if they get clever about making the chip hard to remove. You don't have any support for you claim that a, b, and c were unrealistic. Pot, kettle.
  - araes 13y ago
    The marginal risk of spike strips relative to the cost of installing and maintaining run-flat tires is minimal compared to the marginal risk of a radio transmitting (likely with GPS) transceiver that can locate and disable a car relative to the cost of disabling, removing, or spoofing said transceiver. For a longer explanation, spike strips require multiple layers of failure in any criminal activity before they become a concern. You have to be in a car, have alerted police, have not been a good enough driver to elude police, and driven in a consistent direction long enough that they can predict where you'll go and drop spikes. If you're not performing a minor infraction, or you're a criminal who plans ahead, the probability of all these things happening, and you not being able to do anything about any of them is minimal. If you have a radio transmitting GPS on your car that can disable it you only have to hit the first step - be in a car. You don't even have to have police on alert. You can commit a crime, have gotten away, be driving around the next day, and as they're reviewing tape, they'll note your car, see the license (or ID the make, model, markings, and driver), find you, and then disable you wherever you are. All criminals will remove this as a matter of course. This doesn't even speak to the pattern recognition and behavioural attacks that this would allow on any criminal organization, enabling things like predictive surveillance (there's a big car pow-wow on 5th and Lake St. every Sat. night), optimal raids (same), or covertly nabbing members (Dino likes to go for a snack at 8:00 every night). Further, this is easily as bad as the NSA "meta-data" scandal, since the pattern recognition above used against all common citizens is absolutely begging for abuse by middle managers and line-workers (where's my girlfriend going?)
  - john_b 13y ago
    A) is true almost by definition. You could also object that criminals who plan on speeding away from the scene of a crime may forget to put enough gas in their tank and run out of gas before they get away. It's plausible, but crime is a cat and mouse game and if something poses a severe enough threat to criminals, those who do not defend against it will get caught. Those left will learn from their mistakes. Even if all criminals initially neglect to remove the receiver and get caught, you don't expect a world where future criminals are too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others, do you? B) It might not have been entirely clear from how I worded it, but I was speaking only of crimes that are witnessed ocurring in public. The reasoning behind this exclusion is that the technology in the article is discussed in the context of being combined with police surveillance (either in person or via camera). I couldn't find reliable statistics on the percentage of crimes with cooperative witnesses that lead to charges being filed, but it's common knowledge among law enforcement that cooperative witnesses greatly improve the odds of charges being filed [1]. The point I was making here is that if the crime is witnessed by several people or captured on video the identity of the suspect can usually be determined. C) Like (A), this is impossible to prove either way since we're talking about what might happen in the future, conditioned on a certain technology seeing widespread adoption. However, rather than speculate ad nauseum, I simply invite you to review the last decade of history in both the US, UK, and Australia (possibly other countries as well) in which the legal restrictions surrounding the use of police force (see: stop-and-frisk, police dogs as probable cause on a leash, etc) have decreased while the technology they have available has increased in power (surplus armored vehicles sold to police, increasingly common license plate readers, etc). The point here, regardless of what would happen if the remote stop technology were adopted, is that police have earned a degree of public distrust and skepticism that has no parallel in recent history, and starting from a position of distrust and moving to trust when the populace is convinced later is much safer than the opposite. [1] http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/163242604/in-chicago-violence-soars-and-witnesses-go-silent http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/163242604/in-chicago-violence-...

ma2rten 13y ago

From the article: The technology, scheduled for a six-year development timetable, is aimed at bringing dangerous high-speed car chases to an end and to make redundant current stopping techniques such as spiking a vehicle's tyres.

hahainternet 13y ago
Right, and the parent poster claims with no support that a) The technology will be removed by all criminals who plan ahead b) Criminals that don't plan ahead are almost always caught c) This technology will be used for minor infractions that are 'ticketable offences' None of this is realistic or supported at all. I gave an example in another post, run-flat tyres defeat spike strips. Why do criminals rarely fit them?
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  Because run-flat tires cost a lot more than removing a chip. Or buying a jammer, if they get clever about making the chip hard to remove. You don't have any support for you claim that a, b, and c were unrealistic. Pot, kettle.
- araes 13y ago
  The marginal risk of spike strips relative to the cost of installing and maintaining run-flat tires is minimal compared to the marginal risk of a radio transmitting (likely with GPS) transceiver that can locate and disable a car relative to the cost of disabling, removing, or spoofing said transceiver. For a longer explanation, spike strips require multiple layers of failure in any criminal activity before they become a concern. You have to be in a car, have alerted police, have not been a good enough driver to elude police, and driven in a consistent direction long enough that they can predict where you'll go and drop spikes. If you're not performing a minor infraction, or you're a criminal who plans ahead, the probability of all these things happening, and you not being able to do anything about any of them is minimal. If you have a radio transmitting GPS on your car that can disable it you only have to hit the first step - be in a car. You don't even have to have police on alert. You can commit a crime, have gotten away, be driving around the next day, and as they're reviewing tape, they'll note your car, see the license (or ID the make, model, markings, and driver), find you, and then disable you wherever you are. All criminals will remove this as a matter of course. This doesn't even speak to the pattern recognition and behavioural attacks that this would allow on any criminal organization, enabling things like predictive surveillance (there's a big car pow-wow on 5th and Lake St. every Sat. night), optimal raids (same), or covertly nabbing members (Dino likes to go for a snack at 8:00 every night). Further, this is easily as bad as the NSA "meta-data" scandal, since the pattern recognition above used against all common citizens is absolutely begging for abuse by middle managers and line-workers (where's my girlfriend going?)
- john_b 13y ago
  A) is true almost by definition. You could also object that criminals who plan on speeding away from the scene of a crime may forget to put enough gas in their tank and run out of gas before they get away. It's plausible, but crime is a cat and mouse game and if something poses a severe enough threat to criminals, those who do not defend against it will get caught. Those left will learn from their mistakes. Even if all criminals initially neglect to remove the receiver and get caught, you don't expect a world where future criminals are too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others, do you? B) It might not have been entirely clear from how I worded it, but I was speaking only of crimes that are witnessed ocurring in public. The reasoning behind this exclusion is that the technology in the article is discussed in the context of being combined with police surveillance (either in person or via camera). I couldn't find reliable statistics on the percentage of crimes with cooperative witnesses that lead to charges being filed, but it's common knowledge among law enforcement that cooperative witnesses greatly improve the odds of charges being filed [1]. The point I was making here is that if the crime is witnessed by several people or captured on video the identity of the suspect can usually be determined. C) Like (A), this is impossible to prove either way since we're talking about what might happen in the future, conditioned on a certain technology seeing widespread adoption. However, rather than speculate ad nauseum, I simply invite you to review the last decade of history in both the US, UK, and Australia (possibly other countries as well) in which the legal restrictions surrounding the use of police force (see: stop-and-frisk, police dogs as probable cause on a leash, etc) have decreased while the technology they have available has increased in power (surplus armored vehicles sold to police, increasingly common license plate readers, etc). The point here, regardless of what would happen if the remote stop technology were adopted, is that police have earned a degree of public distrust and skepticism that has no parallel in recent history, and starting from a position of distrust and moving to trust when the populace is convinced later is much safer than the opposite. [1] http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/163242604/in-chicago-violence-soars-and-witnesses-go-silent http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/163242604/in-chicago-violence-...