4 ms·

There are many practical uses for drones, but this is not one of them. First, the drone must be outside to be able to escape quickly. That's a problem, as cons

by ggreer 11y ago

There are many practical uses for drones, but this is not one of them. First, the drone must be outside to be able to escape quickly. That's a problem, as consumer drones aren't designed to spend weeks sitting outdoors. Even if a drone was weatherproof, it would need its batteries topped-up from time to time. Second, you will not have access to your phone or other signaling devices if you are getting busted. It would be very hard to trigger the drone surreptitiously. Last, police are going to notice a drone flying away during a bust. And they won't be happy about it. For all they know, the drone could be carrying a bomb. This escalates the situation and makes a bad outcome much more likely. If you want a better use of drones, here's one: First response. Place drone "nests" every 500 meters in urban areas. Cell towers might be convenient locations. When ShotSpotter[1] detects gunfire, dispatch the closest drone to the scene. It can arrive within 20 seconds, record footage, and relay it to police. Currently, police and medics wait for backup before going to the scene of a shooting. But with drones to send the all-clear, they could treat victims sooner, saving lives. Future upgrades could even allow tracking of suspects. This would make it much harder to get away with firing a gun in a city. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator

nl 11y ago
If you want a better use of drones, here's one: First response. Place drone "nests" every 500 meters in urban areas. Cell towers might be convenient locations. When ShotSpotter[1] detects gunfire, dispatch the closest drone to the scene. It can arrive within 20 seconds, record footage, and relay it to police. Currently, police and medics wait for backup before going to the scene of a shooting. But with drones to send the all-clear, they could treat victims sooner, saving lives. Future upgrades could even allow tracking of suspects. This would make it much harder to get away with firing a gun in a city. Persistent Surveillance Systems does this, but not as a response system. They just photograph the entire city from the air once per second and when a shooting happens they rewind, then trace where the suspect came from and went[1]. They don't use drones though. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-surveillance-technology-can-track-everyone-in-an-area-for-several-hours-at-a-time/2014/02/05/82f1556e-876f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-survei...
bilbo0s 11y ago
"...Place drone "nests" every 500 meters in urban areas. Cell towers might be convenient locations. When ShotSpotter[1] detects gunfire, dispatch the closest drone to the scene. It can arrive within 20 seconds, record footage, and relay it to police..." Is there some reason you wouldn't use stationary cameras to do this ??? I mean... it seems like a lot of extra expense and technical hurdles for not much more payoff. Actually... I'm pretty sure there isn't ANY payoff as far as benefits beyond those conferred by the use of stationary cameras goes. And the technical hurdles are pretty large. You're in an urban area... so how do you get good lines of sight ??? You have to fly around quite a bit... and you'd almost certainly need human controllers, increasing the expense. Drones could crash during incident response, and in an urban area, ie-densely populated, that definitely would entail some collateral damage. Potentially even severe human casualties. Hackers can potentially boost your drones and then they "own" them. I mean... the list goes on and on. I think that the "better" use you gave is actually one of the WORST ideas you could have for drone use. I mean... we have cameras right now ??? Why would we not just set up a monitoring system... if we wanted a monitoring system ???
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > You have to fly around quite a bit... and you'd almost certainly need human controllers, increasing the expense. So where's the problem? Have two officers on duty, you don't have gunshots that often to justify one officer per drone 24/7. > I mean... we have cameras right now ??? Why would we not just set up a monitoring system... if we wanted a monitoring system ??? You could do this in the UK, but not anywhere else. NCIS LA ain't real.
- ggreer 11y ago
  Even in urban areas in the US, stationary cameras have extremely poor coverage. More importantly, most stationary cameras can't be commanded by police to send a live feed. Building a network of cameras covering the entire city would have large infrastructure costs and significant surveillance concerns. As far as I know, only a few places in the UK have done this. The infrastructure cost of drones is much lower, and privacy concerns are practically nonexistent. The drones would only record for a few minutes around the area of a shooting. Yes, some places might have poor sight-lines. That's a great example of where drones beat static cameras. Places with poor sight-lines would require many static cameras, and they'd need to be updated to reflect new construction. Drones can fly around obstructions, making them more effective than cameras in these situations. Human controllers would be useful, but cost wouldn't be a problem. You don't need a deputized police officer on "drone duty" at every station. More likely, controllers would be contractors servicing a large area. Software would dispatch the drone to the location of gunfire and a pilot would explore the area to give the all-clear. "Severe human casualties" are impossible. These drones would weigh less than 10 lbs and carry no weapons. They'd be no more dangerous than personal drones today. Concerns about "hacking" are a movie plot threat. The risk of hacking is the same for any application of drones, including home delivery. I think I've addressed most of your points. Still, it's annoying that cleaning up a mess takes so much longer than making one. I think your comments could be much higher quality if you made a few thoughtful objections instead of replying with every objection that comes to mind.
heeen2 11y ago
That sounds pretty orwellian, straight out of City 17
- icebraining 11y ago
  Constant surveillance is even more Orwellian, and yet look at London.
hey1969 11y ago
So build a drone hide with a weather-resistant, quick retractable cover... red herring problem solved.

by ggreer 11y ago

nl 11y ago

If you want a better use of drones, here's one: First response. Place drone "nests" every 500 meters in urban areas. Cell towers might be convenient locations. When ShotSpotter[1] detects gunfire, dispatch the closest drone to the scene. It can arrive within 20 seconds, record footage, and relay it to police. Currently, police and medics wait for backup before going to the scene of a shooting. But with drones to send the all-clear, they could treat victims sooner, saving lives. Future upgrades could even allow tracking of suspects. This would make it much harder to get away with firing a gun in a city. Persistent Surveillance Systems does this, but not as a response system. They just photograph the entire city from the air once per second and when a shooting happens they rewind, then trace where the suspect came from and went[1]. They don't use drones though. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-surveillance-technology-can-track-everyone-in-an-area-for-several-hours-at-a-time/2014/02/05/82f1556e-876f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-survei...

bilbo0s 11y ago

"...Place drone "nests" every 500 meters in urban areas. Cell towers might be convenient locations. When ShotSpotter[1] detects gunfire, dispatch the closest drone to the scene. It can arrive within 20 seconds, record footage, and relay it to police..." Is there some reason you wouldn't use stationary cameras to do this ??? I mean... it seems like a lot of extra expense and technical hurdles for not much more payoff. Actually... I'm pretty sure there isn't ANY payoff as far as benefits beyond those conferred by the use of stationary cameras goes. And the technical hurdles are pretty large. You're in an urban area... so how do you get good lines of sight ??? You have to fly around quite a bit... and you'd almost certainly need human controllers, increasing the expense. Drones could crash during incident response, and in an urban area, ie-densely populated, that definitely would entail some collateral damage. Potentially even severe human casualties. Hackers can potentially boost your drones and then they "own" them. I mean... the list goes on and on. I think that the "better" use you gave is actually one of the WORST ideas you could have for drone use. I mean... we have cameras right now ??? Why would we not just set up a monitoring system... if we wanted a monitoring system ???

mschuster91 11y ago
> You have to fly around quite a bit... and you'd almost certainly need human controllers, increasing the expense. So where's the problem? Have two officers on duty, you don't have gunshots that often to justify one officer per drone 24/7. > I mean... we have cameras right now ??? Why would we not just set up a monitoring system... if we wanted a monitoring system ??? You could do this in the UK, but not anywhere else. NCIS LA ain't real.
ggreer 11y ago
Even in urban areas in the US, stationary cameras have extremely poor coverage. More importantly, most stationary cameras can't be commanded by police to send a live feed. Building a network of cameras covering the entire city would have large infrastructure costs and significant surveillance concerns. As far as I know, only a few places in the UK have done this. The infrastructure cost of drones is much lower, and privacy concerns are practically nonexistent. The drones would only record for a few minutes around the area of a shooting. Yes, some places might have poor sight-lines. That's a great example of where drones beat static cameras. Places with poor sight-lines would require many static cameras, and they'd need to be updated to reflect new construction. Drones can fly around obstructions, making them more effective than cameras in these situations. Human controllers would be useful, but cost wouldn't be a problem. You don't need a deputized police officer on "drone duty" at every station. More likely, controllers would be contractors servicing a large area. Software would dispatch the drone to the location of gunfire and a pilot would explore the area to give the all-clear. "Severe human casualties" are impossible. These drones would weigh less than 10 lbs and carry no weapons. They'd be no more dangerous than personal drones today. Concerns about "hacking" are a movie plot threat. The risk of hacking is the same for any application of drones, including home delivery. I think I've addressed most of your points. Still, it's annoying that cleaning up a mess takes so much longer than making one. I think your comments could be much higher quality if you made a few thoughtful objections instead of replying with every objection that comes to mind.

heeen2 11y ago

That sounds pretty orwellian, straight out of City 17

icebraining 11y ago
Constant surveillance is even more Orwellian, and yet look at London.

hey1969 11y ago

So build a drone hide with a weather-resistant, quick retractable cover... red herring problem solved.