Slashdot Mirror


Eye In the Sky For City Crime Fighting

Tiger4 writes "The mayor of the City of Lancaster in the Antelope Valley of southern California is considering a high-definition video flying platform to aid in crime fighting. The aircraft, would circle the city constantly, able to zoom in on activity spots instantly. 'You never know when you are being watched or followed. It would be stupid to commit a crime. You see it with such detail,' said Mayor R. Rex Parris, who took a ride last week in a camera-equipped airplane with pilot Dick Rutan. 'I have every hope that Lancaster will be the first city to deploy it. I've never been so excited about anything.' Dick Rutan is the same pilot who flew around the world non-stop in the Voyager, custom built by his brother Burt Rutan at Scaled Composites in Mojave." The aircraft is nothing special, a garden-variety Cessna or the like, but "the camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications, Rutan said."

20 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Next step by redcaboodle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Outlaw roofs.

    --
    -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
    1. Re:Next step by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Why, with the right type of camera, you can see right through them.

      Btw, could someone tag the story "bluethunder"? I can't seem to add tags.

    2. Re:Next step by N3Roaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The new fashion accessory that every criminal thug just has to have: an umbrella.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    3. Re:Next step by siloko · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well Blue Thunder was an ostensibly civilian undertaking which sort of suggests you agree with the quoted sentiment:

      The camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications

      I disagree however. Once government's start using military surveillance techniques on it's citizenry they are no longer a civilian government's but precursors to a police state. And the guys excited about it . . . I'm not sure whether thats scary or disgusting!

    4. Re:Next step by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, let's see, so far citizens are unanimously in favor of:
      • Automated Speed Cameras
      • Red Light Cameras
      • Neighborhood Cameras (ala UK)
      • Cameras in the classrooms of elementary schools

      Well, sure, I'm guessing we'll all be embracing the next logical step in govt. surveillance!! The all seeing HD eye in the sky.

      Wait, did I forget my [sarcasm] tag??

      Sadly, there will be a decent number of people that will go for this. More and more these days a saying I heard awhile back is even more pertinent:

      What one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Next step by siloko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know you were joking but the awful truth is that when the politicians really are corrupt and they are bouncing off the walls in excitement over deploying military hardware against the electorate then neither they nor the Police are likely to be breaking any laws. Because they will be the law. Cue accusations of overblown paranoia . . . but the surveillance used now against private citizens isn't far away from that envisaged by Orwell . . .

    6. Re:Next step by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our mayor (yes, I live in the AV) would indeed outlaw roofs if he could. This is the same guy who said that he would seize and kill law-abiding citizens' pets if doing so would discourage gang members from owning dogs.

      Think I'm making this up??
      http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/26/local/me-dogordinance26?pg=1
      ======
      "What happens when these gang members that you're trying to target move on to Dobermans or German shepherds? You going to restrict them too?" Listman asked the council.

      "If they move on to cats," Parris responded, "I'm going to take their cats."
      ======

      He's an ambulance chaser by profession, which means in his worldview, there is only one solution for every social ill: SOMEONE MUST PAY!!

      The man is a menace to the Constitution.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Or how else is this thing going to circle the city constantly if they only have one?

    Seriously, though, the whole idea is wrong on so many levels it's not funny anymore. Privacy aside, couldn't they at least use a platform that's better suited to long-term surveillance, such as a small (drone-sized), unmanned airship?

    1. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by Akido37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like those cities with cameras everywhere, except some of the camera boxes don't even contain a camera.

      For the system to work, it doesn't actually have to record every crime. It only has to deter people from committing crimes out of fear that they MAY be recorded.

      That said, I think that constant surveillance will be the end of our republic.

    2. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Privacy outside of a building is not constitutionally mandated. Walking on the street? Anyone can take pictures of you - media, gov't, private citizens and you have zero privacy claims. There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building.

      But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK).

      It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...

    3. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      He is referring to reports of incidents where the police have attempted to confiscate cameras that were used to take pictures of them making an arrest. There was a case a year or so ago where the police arrested someone for videoing them making an arrest. There was actually a law in that state making it illegal to video a police officer. Fortunately, the state courts ruled the law unconstitutional.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  3. And criminals... by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...never do anything stupid, so the Mayor pointing out "It would be stupid to commit a crime" is a really excellent example of how compelling the case is for using this sort of surveillance technology.

    If politicians and police were honest about this they'd be doing a controlled experiment on these deployments, putting out these systems in ways that varied both in space and time that allowed them to determine whether these things had any effect on quality of life amongst the citizens, which is the metric that matters.

    Instead, they are content to make stuff up, and the average person is so relentlessly anti-empirical that they have no idea what they are missing.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    1. Re:And criminals... by WindowlessView · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so the Mayor pointing out "It would be stupid to commit a crime"

      If this is true, then why are government officials so reluctant to have their own activities monitored? Why do law enforcement get so edgy about being filmed? Why are cameras not allowed in most court rooms? Why aren't public officials monitored all day long? It just stops crime, after all.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    2. Re:And criminals... by hacker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If this is true, then why are government officials so reluctant to have their own activities monitored? Why do law enforcement get so edgy about being filmed? Why are cameras not allowed in most court rooms? Why aren't public officials monitored all day long? It just stops crime, after all.

      You bring up a very interesting point. What if the flying-camera-drone catches some police abuse on civilians, or some other egregious violation of human or civil rights? Do we, as civilians, have the right to request the footage of that incident at that time? After all OUR money paid for this plan, the pilot's salary, the camera, the fuel and everything else related to putting that object in the air. Does the FOIA cover this too?

    3. Re:And criminals... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What if the flying-camera-drone catches some police abuse on civilians, or some other egregious violation of human or civil rights? Do we, as civilians, have the right to request the footage of that incident at that time?

      Oh, you certainly have all the right in the world to request the footage of the incident, which will do you a whole lot of good if the tape has been "misplaced" or just doesn't exist because the camera had a "glitch" just when it happened. *winkwink*

  4. Re:Anyone... by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    going to offer a reward to the first person to shoot the damn thing down?

    Ask your friendly neighborhood drug lord.

    The next version of the plane is then going to be armed with 20mm cannons. Why just watch crime when you can stop it dead?

  5. City of Lancaster? by funkatron · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a moment I thought I knew where that was. Are there any place names America didn't steal?

    --
    "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
  6. Worst idea ever by moogied · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Criminals rarely think "Gee... I sure hope no one sees me do this!" they think "Gee... I sure hope I can get the hell away from the scene before a cop gets me.". Having something floating around would require several things to actually work:

    1. Someone to know the crime is happening and thus record it, send cops over, and prevent it.
    2. No blind spots(good luck on a roaming platform. Last I checked, buildings still are 3d and thus will cause blind spots.
    3. The criminals not to take the most basic of all precautions to hide there identity(sky masks aren't exactly hard to make or buy.).

    So, in conclusion, it looks like some dumb ass company built this device and decided to market it to whatever sucker they could find. World keeps on turning.

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
  7. Agreed. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wholeheartedly agree. On the condition that the loop includes a trip above the Mayor's house and that all video feeds are released to the public.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  8. Trying to counter irrational acts, rationally by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Criminals don't think "oooh here comes the crime fighting plane - I don't think I'll mug that little old lady "

    They either plan around it (unlikely) or commit impulsive acts when the opportunity arises. They also don't always commit their crimes out-doors, or in cloud-free weather. They also don't ever expect to get caught (if they did, that would be a deterrent - it isn't).. So while keeping a plane in the air (and presumably a control room staffed, to watch the spy cameras) and a mechanic on standby to refule it and maintain it, might sound like a good idea - and may even impress the voters the chances of it reducing crime are small.

    Luckily for the mayor, it's impossible to correlate one act of crime prevention with any movement in the crime statistics, so whatever happens (short of someone stealing the plane), he, she or it will be able to call the initiative a success.

    I do have a feeling though, that this plan was not exactly thought out. Any sale to a gullible official - who isn't spending their own cash yet comes out with statements like "I've never been so excited about anything" sounds like exuberance has got the better over common sense. I would expect that the money earmarked for this plan would be far better spent on orthodox police patrols: more officers, more man-hours and maybe even a few public awareness campaigns. Not as sexy, but far more effective.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons