Armed Robot Drones To Join UK Police Force

Lanxon writes "British criminals should soon prepare to be shot at from unmanned airborne police robots. Last month it was revealed that modified military aircraft drones will carry out surveillance on everyone from British protesters and antisocial motorists to fly-tippers. But these drones could be armed with tasers, non-lethal projectiles and ultra-powerful disorienting strobe lighting apparatus, reports Wired. The flying robot fleet will range from miniature tactical craft such as the miniature AirRobot being tested by one police force, to BAE System's new 12m-wide armed HERTI drone as flown in Afghanistan."

Comments

This issue concerns YRO

[BhaKi]

Your Rights Offline

Re:This issue concerns YRO

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Robot Overlords.
Duh.

I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one...

[ls671]

I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one...

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/07/28/2012218/Londons-Robotic-Fire-Brigade

The one in the TFA seems to have tracks instead of wheels but they seem similar. Same company building them maybe ?

Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be the first to say it: 1984 and V for Vendetta. I am come on, flying, armed, police drones?

Of course it's Britain.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[iamapizza]

And because it's Britain, there isn't much to worry about. The project will be delayed by 8 years, overrun its budget by about 12 Million GBP. They'll come up with a crap logo for it as they did for the Olympics, and within a few hours of launch, the drones will malfunction and start tasering trees; eventually the whole project will be scrapped for health and safety reasons, I mean, what if the tree falls on someone while it's being tasered?

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[delinear]

I know this part of TFS was about a slightly different story, but: "[...] modified military aircraft drones will carry out surveillance on everyone from British protesters and antisocial motorists to fly-tippers" sums up the state of the UK perfectly, our Glorious Government will spend millions on police drones that carry out surveillance on everyone from protesters to motorists to people throwing away rubbish, so everyone except criminals then?

It's the same old pattern, if it costs a fortune and can be used to keep the guy on the street under control, the budget is endless whether the excuse is terrorism/crime (new strict laws, insane airport security, full body scanners, ID cards, numerous measures to spy on everything we do) or our own "safety" (miles and miles of speed cameras, even on roads where you're lucky to be doing half the speed limit most of the time), and yet nobody seems to feel any safer.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[jimicus]

Actually, I'd have to disagree with that.

They'll find a way to monetise this - have the robots automatically hand out fines, for instance - and believe me, within a year they will be amazingly efficient.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Hal_Porter]

Tell that to Sergeant Killbot. His new 133.7 firmware includes a Modern Literature database and a hardware irony decoder.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

"... and yet nobody seems to feel any safer."

And of course there is good reason for that: nobody is any safer.

Traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates. A recent report said that approximately 1 crime was solved for every 100,000 surveillance cameras installed (there are over a million in London). The report did not say whether any of them were major crimes, or whether the same crime might have been solved anyway had the cops been on the street instead of behind cameras. And how about cost? How much does it cost to install 100,000 cameras and pay someone to watch them?

And so on. It seems like it has just been an endless stream of the same old thing: give up your liberties in order to make you "safer", but in reality it inconveniences you greatly, costs you a lot of money, and doesn't work. But you have still lost those liberties.

--

"They that give up essential liberties in order to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

Apologies, I did not mean to make it look like I was mixing traffic and surveillance cameras. They are separate issues, but accidentally got put into the same paragraph.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[L4t3r4lu5]

Actually, I'd argue I don't feel any safer because I didn't feel unsafe before. I'm more likely to die by alcohol poisoning, in a car accident, from a heart attack, or cancer, and these are all things that I can have a direct influence on.

Terrorism just doesn't scare me.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[xaxa]

"... and yet nobody seems to feel any safer."

And of course there is good reason for that: nobody is any safer.

Traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates.

That's not relevant. Have traffic cameras reduced injury rates and/or seriousness of injury? British roads are some of the safest in the world, but that's a combination of traffic patterns, road design, driving style, congestion, law enforcement, and so one. We have very safe motorways, but we don't do so well on residential roads (although the spread of 20mph limits should help there).

How much does it cost to install 100,000 cameras and pay someone to watch them?

A small proportion of installed cameras in the UK are monitored. Most of them are owned privately (in shops etc), and the recording is only looked at if something happens.

Many of the monitored cameras work with the police. One person monitors multiple cameras, and if they see trouble they tell the police where to go. I assume this is cheaper than having enough police to be watching all those places on the street.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention the droids will be leaking oil all over the place...

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[AHuxley]

The british gov can deliver on weapons platforms, Al-Yamamah worked out just fine.
Flying LRAD aimed at you will be creative.
Old way was a on a truck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EUU0BpQego the fun starts at 1 min in.
Or in the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM
If its used by the forward intelligence teams,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6im93mDOhFc
this will get very personal and direct.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Nathrael]

Actually, I'm much less concerned about drones acting in dangerous situations than cops or soldiers.

If you find yourself under fire, you'll likely go fight-or-flight, and unless you're superbly trained and disciplined, you won't keep calm but fire at everything that might be the shooter. If you find your remotely-controlled drone under fire while you're comfortably sitting in front of a computer screen, the situation is different. Sure, losing a drone might not be great, but the decision between sacrificing a drone and possibly killing some innocent civilian is a no-brainer. Especially if you've got a lawyer standing right behind you, ensuring that you don't break any regulations.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Ginger Unicorn]

Have you even read either of those books? The amount of times people on slashdot shit out "references" to 1984 which basically consist of mentioning the title of the book whenever the uk government proposes anything invasive or tries to give too much power to the police. This is not insightful. Do you even know what 1984 is about, other than "they have cameras everywhere"?

If somehow a Scientology Party got into power in britain, then I'd start shitting myself about "1984"

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[jimicus]

A recent report said that approximately 1 crime was solved for every 100,000 surveillance cameras installed

That's quite impressive. By the time you've wired the camera in, powered it, connected it to some sort of recording system and sat someone at the other end, I can't imagine you'd see much change out of £150-200 per camera (and that's before you consider the wages for the person watching the camera). Which comes to around £20 million per crime solved.

I wonder how many more policemen you could hire for £20 million.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

Traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates.

"That's not relevant."

Why isn't it? I don't know about the UK, but here, cameras were installed at traffic lights for the specific purpose of catching people running red lights. The onstensible motivation for installing the cameras was to discourage people from running those red lights, and thereby prevent accidents. But according to reports from the UK (who have had them longer than we), and those U.S. cities which have had them for a couple of years, pretty consistently indicate that they have the opposite effect: that of actually increasing the accident rate. None of the studies of which I am aware noted any significant increase or decrease in relative injury or fatality rate of those accidents.

So, basically, they have just the opposite societal effect as was intended, and as was used to justify their expense to the public. But the fact of the matter is, we KNOW why they were installed in our community, despite what the local politicians said: they were put there to generate revenue for the police department through the issuance of traffic tickets. I know that is so because they are required to report it. Those same politicians recently voted to increase the number of cameras in my city, using as justification the fact that each existing camera brought in a bit more than 3 times the revenue than what it cost. They did not even bother to pretend this time that they were for preventing accidents.

"A small proportion of installed cameras in the UK are monitored. Most of them are owned privately (in shops etc), and the recording is only looked at if something happens."

Whether they are owned privately or not is the part that is irrelevant. It still eventually comes down to societal cost. Those businesses that installed cameras will increase their prices or their margins so the "the people" eventually pay for them.

As for the other part: so, only a small proportion are monitored. How small? Is maybe 0.1% a good rough guess? If so, then here is what you still have in London, according to those figures from the BBC: you still have the societal cost of installing 1,000,000 cameras and the video systems that go with them, plus the cost of 1,000 people to watch those systems, to solve 10 crimes. Not even necessarily major crimes.

That is a lot of cost. And even if you figure the initial cost is gone after the first year, you still have the cost of paying 1,000 people to watch cameras in order to solve 10 crimes. That is still a lot of cost. 1000 x annual wages or salary, to solve 10 crimes.

And that is one of the reasons we don't do it here.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

Pardon me. Certainly some businesses use cameras, but nowhere near the extent seen in the UK. And of those, probably 1/3 - 1/3 are fakes.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[itsthebin]

I wonder how many more policemen you could hire for £20 million.

probably 20

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[redalien]

Indeed! If there's ever a story about the state providing pornography to all I bet there'll be no 1984 references.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I am a lot more afraid of the increasingly draconian powers of governments than I am of terrorists.

• The British authorities can impose heavy restrictions on individual liberties (is it a 16-hour curfew?) without actually having to win a case before a court.
• We have more and more summary powers, where individual officials can impose punishments like fines on people, again without having to provide any evidence beyond their own word or having to make a case before a court.
• We have more and more surveillance powers and government databases, where individual officials can access vast databases about people, often with dubious levels of justification or oversight. (Notice I keep writing "officials", by the way, because these powers apply to hundreds of thousands of people who aren't even part of the police/security services/courts.)
• Courts themselves can impose ASBOs, which can criminalise activities that would otherwise be perfectly legal. In other words, magistrates (who are not even trained lawyers, and operate in our lowest tier of courts) can effectively legislate.
• You can now be punished on mere suspicion. In addition to the control orders mentioned above, there are numerous crimes under recent legislation that ban collecting things that "might" be useful to bad people, or let the authorities act on "suspicion" that you might be doing something bad. Most of these are so broadly worded that things like carrying a camera and photographing a public building have been treated as covered by these laws. Don't even think about reading the Anarchist's Cookbook, which IIRC was doing the rounds in schools 20 years ago or more, or buying the kind of home chemistry set that the last generation or two enjoyed out of a simple curiosity about science.
• Actually, scratch that "suspicion" requirement. There have actually been occasions where senior officials have stood up and, with a straight face, defended a policy that explicitly and in very simple words said that they could do bad things to members of the public without needing any reasonable grounds for suspicion.
• The government have been told repeatedly by various courts that they have gone too far, and their response is typically to mumble something about national security and terrorism, and then completely ignore the court ruling. Yes, the administration are openly ignoring the rulings of courts when they don't like them.

Next to this lot, one more drone in the sky that isn't going to do more than spy on you, tase you or cause an epileptic fit with its strobe lights seems like nothing, which tells you have far we have fallen. Roll in 6 May, and may none of the big parties achieve a working majority that lets them take any of this madness any further.

By the way, was anyone else dumbfounded while listening to David Miliband talking about the release of the torture information yesterday? Speaking in Parliament, he seemed far more interested in being nice to the US and protecting the intelligence agencies than he was about the fact that our government knew about torture being carried out on a British resident, and did nothing about it! He even had the cheek to claim that the revelation of this information now showed that everyone had recourse to the law and the system was working, which I'm sure will be a great comfort to those under control orders who clearly do not have any such thing, not to mention to the man who was held and tortured for years in this particular case. I thought our succession of increasingly abusive Home Secretaries was bad, but Miliband, D. has just made it to second place on my "really doesn't get it" scale, right behind Blair, T.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[xaxa]

Traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates.

"That's not relevant."

Why isn't it?

It's not relevant, in the sense that I don't really care about someone causing minor vehicle damage rear-ending a car that stops a bit too quickly at the lights. I care about the people suffering serious injury when someone runs the lights.

But according to reports from the UK (who have had them longer than we), and those U.S. cities which have had them for a couple of years, pretty consistently indicate that they have the opposite effect

The only reports like that I've seen have been from very biased motoring organisations.
The government statistics show the number of "KSI" (people killed or seriously injured) is reduced.

they were put there to generate revenue for the police department through the issuance of traffic tickets

Which doesn't happen in the UK (at least, not at a local level). The revenue goes to central government. Local authorities (local government) get grants for road safety, which they might use on cameras, or they might use on education, training, or redesigning roads.

In the USA there seem to be places that have installed cameras and decreased the yellow-light time. Here, the yellow light time is standard (for a given speed of road).

That is a lot of cost. And even if you figure the initial cost is gone after the first year, you still have the cost of paying 1,000 people to watch cameras in order to solve 10 crimes. That is still a lot of cost. 1000 x annual wages or salary, to solve 10 crimes.

You've just made up a load of numbers.

People monitoring cameras don't solve crimes, although they might witness them. Police looking through what was recorded may get evidence which they can use to solve crimes and convict criminals.

Monitored cameras are either a deterrent -- they move the problem elsewhere, although obviously not as well as a policeman standing in the street would -- or they are used for directing the police.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[The Slashdot 8Ball]

I can't find any studies related specifically to red-light cameras so if you could provide some links that would be useful.

However, in 2005 the British Medical Journal published a systematic review "Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: a systematic review". This is a meta-analysis of all articles related to speed-camera sites, collisions, injuries and deaths. They conclude:

Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties.

Whilst this doesn't directly address red-light cameras it suggests that introducing traffic cameras causes people to improve their driving habits.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[moosesocks]

Eventually, however, the robots reach the point where they are both functional and profitable for the government. Subsequently, Margaret Thatcher will be re-elected, and the robots will be privatized as Robocops, Plc, and will never work again.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[xelah]

The government statistics show the number of "KSI" (people killed or seriously injured) is reduced.

From your link:

after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced.

(my emphasis) ie, they don't show any such thing. They don't show anything at all regarding collisions. Speed cameras are frequently installed in places where there have recently been many serious accidents, quite possibly including places where the accident rate has been above its long term average. You need to find some better statistics (or, better, someone needs to carry out a properly designed and randomized trial). By drawing the conclusion that they do from this the government is simply lying about what it knows.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Nadaka]

I was thinking terminators, hunter killers to be specific.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[moosesocks]

I never understood the hysterics about cameras in public places. If these cameras infringe upon your rights so severely, what about the numerous cameras located in every bank, convenience store, and supermarket on the planet? How are those any different?

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazingly efficient like the other stuff the government "monetised", like British Rail and Consignia^W the Post Office?

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[boethius78]

Heh, soon we'll have flying robots which tase you, then nick your wallet.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

How long until the drones start leaking oil?

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's not relevant, in the sense that I don't really care about someone causing minor vehicle damage rear-ending a car that stops a bit too quickly at the lights. I care about the people suffering serious injury when someone runs the lights."

But I think it is relevant because that was the whole gist of the reports: the intersection cameras INCREASED the accident rate. Not only did they not decrease red light running, but they also increased other types of accidents. Any way you look at it, it's still an overall negative effect on public safety. Here is a link to 5 studies done in the US and Canada. I have not found the story I first read from the BBC, but I assure you that is where I was first informed of this issue.

The yellow light time is a standard in the U.S., too. Those cities that were found to have reduced it were given heavy fines and other penalties.

No, I did not just "make up numbers". But when I went to look up the article I found that I had made a rather large mistake. The number is 1 crime in 1,000, not 1 in 100,000. Apologies, that was definitely a memory failure on my part.

"People monitoring cameras don't solve crimes, although they might witness them."

Not according to the BBC article I just linked to above. I was just using their wording. Complain to them.

"Monitored cameras are either a deterrent -- they move the problem elsewhere, although obviously not as well as a policeman standing in the street would -- or they are used for directing the police."

That has no bearing whatever on my comments.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'm unsure about the first three without examples, but I can tell you more about the magistracy. The three magistrates who sit are essentially a small jury, and as such examine fact over law. Advice (more instruction) on the law (and appropriate sentencing) is given by a legal advisor who is a trained solicitor, often with quite considerable experience. Magistrates almost always follow the guidance of the legal advisor as there are big issues with being overly harsh or lenient. I know several magistrates.

New guidelines are very much against using Section 44 powers to stop people taking photographs. The idiocy of some of the stops got too embarrassing.

Besides that, +1 my man. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

Those are only "public" places to a very limited degree. You have a choice whether you want to go to a particular store or bank, but depending on your circumstances you might not have much of a choice whether to walk down the sidewalk.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[WCguru42]

Actually, I'd argue I don't feel any safer because I didn't feel unsafe before. I'm more likely to die by alcohol poisoning, in a car accident, from a heart attack, or cancer, and these are all things that I can have a direct influence on.

Terrorism just doesn't scare me.

Amen brother.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[lgw]

Especially if you've got a lawyer standing right behind you, ensuring that you don't break any regulations.

This does nothing to relieve fears that robots are handy tools create a brutal totalitarian state. Especially if you have a political officer standing right behind you, ensuring that you don't show any leniency.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[xaxa]

But I think it is relevant because that was the whole gist of the reports: the intersection cameras INCREASED the accident rate. [...] Any way you look at it, it's still an overall negative effect on public safety.

I still don't think the accident rate is important. The injury rate is important. Reports that only consider the accident rate are shortsighted.

Here is a link to 5 studies done in the US and Canada

...hand-picked by a motoring organisation. I can pick five studies on the Internet showing the opposite. This is probably a good start.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[biryokumaru]

Your sig is particularly befitting of this subject.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

"I still don't think the accident rate is important. The injury rate is important. Reports that only consider the accident rate are shortsighted."

Up above, if you look again, I stated "None of the studies of which I am aware noted any significant increase or decrease in relative injury or fatality rate of those accidents."

"...hand-picked by a motoring organisation. I can pick five studies on the Internet showing the opposite."

And maybe you can in the UK. As I mentioned, I did not find the UK study I first read about anyway. But if you look at the US (which is more relevant for a comparison since that's where these studies were done), you will find that almost every Google entry says the same thing. So that's not much of a refutation. Unless you have evidence or actual reason to suspect bias, the important thing is the message, not the messenger. What motivation would a "motoring organization" have to bias a message about this and thereby put its customers in danger?

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[ex_ottoyuhr]

As someone who's read Theodore Dalrymple, PC "David Copperfield," and so on, I'd say that even when they complete it, it won't help. The English government (and the Scottish one, from what I understand) is desperate to restore some form of order, but doesn't have the will to shred some of its bureaucracy and increase police patrols in the orthodox Giuliani fashion. Stuffing the country to the gills with thoughtscreens hasn't been an adequate substitute for that, so I doubt that stuffing it with war droids will be either -- although in both of these cases, countries both more cruel and more competent than Great Britain will probably take to the new technologies with abandon. (I'm looking at China, of course...)

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[biryokumaru]

I'd imagine that'd be more of a Brave New World scenario...

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameras in banks, convenience stores, and supermarkets are generally independently operated and pitched after a few weeks, unwatched and uncorrelated.

Government cameras less so. I remember seeing a reel from youtube where somebody followed an attractive woman through town, jumping from camera to camera, most blurry but sometimes fairly clear, especially at a bus-stop when she stood directly across from the camera and it zoomed at her tits before she got on the bus.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[xaxa]

What motivation would a "motoring organization" have to bias a message about this and thereby put its customers in danger?

I wonder if the difference between the US and UK on this might be the general number of pedestrians? Unfortunately, it's often pedestrians (or cyclists) that are killed or injured on junctions in the UK.

I suspect bias because most motoring organisation websites somewhere have a section complaining about speed limits etc, and how their right to use the road is infringed.

On motorists.org's FAQ:

Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed.

But people driving significantly slower than the average speed isn't related to the speed limit. They haven't answered their question.

Q. Wouldn't everyone drive faster if the speed limit was raised?
A. No [...]

So doesn't that mean there'd be more drivers travelling slower than the average speed? (since there's a wider range of speeds.) The previous answer said this was unsafe.

Speed alone is rarely the cause of accidents.

But a lower speed always makes the resulting crash less serious, and improves everyone's chances of survival.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jane Q. Public]

"But people driving significantly slower than the average speed isn't related to the speed limit. They haven't answered their question."

I agree that it is somewhat misleading. The speed studies to which they refer only related to highway speeds. And at least in the US, the speed limit is very closely related to the average speed... it is often about 5mph lower than the average speed, in my area. :0) I am only exaggerating a little but I have been in other parts of the US where the average highway speed was closer to 20mph over the speed limit. So between regions, there is probably not a whole lot of correlation, but in any given region, there is.

"So doesn't that mean there'd be more drivers travelling slower than the average speed? (since there's a wider range of speeds.) The previous answer said this was unsafe."

Haha, that would seem to logically follow, wouldn't it?

The original study to which they refer was done when the speed limits across much of the United States were forced, by the Federal government, to be reduced from about 70mph in most places to 55mph. They expected to see a dramatic downturn in accidents and fatalities. They did not. In fact there was very little change at all.

Years later, when the law was relaxed, most of those areas increased the speed limit back to what they had before. And even though those speeds were 20mph or more faster than the year before, again the accident and fatality rate changed little if at all.

Other studies in the United States have shown similar results. This really is rather interesting. Psychologists in the workplace have found that changing the working conditions to make them better leads to higher productivity... but only temporarily. Somewhat surprisingly, they also found that changing the working conditions from better to worse also led -- temporarily -- to higher productivity. And this behavior was pretty consistent. Eventually, they had to admit that at least to a certain extent, it was simply a change that caused the different behavior, whether that change was good or bad.

So one might expect for there to be a similar effect on the highways as well. But it didn't happen. A lot of people have been scratching their heads over this, but I don't think anyone has yet found an explanation.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[PeeAitchPee]

And so on. It seems like it has just been an endless stream of the same old thing: give up your liberties in order to make you "safer", but in reality it inconveniences you greatly, costs you a lot of money, and doesn't work. But you have still lost those liberties.

It's never been about "safety." That's just the excuse gov't uses to get suckers to support the new laws they pass to control its subjects and increase revenue. Nothing like invoking the fear of little Timmy being run down to get Mom and Pop to vote for speed cameras! Oh, just think of the children!

The only ultimate reasons government does anything AT ALL are money (redistributed to reward subjects loyal to whoever's in command at the time), control (of the citizens), and above all, maintaining power. You see different flavors of it depending on what side of the pond you're on, but the end goals are the same. Just look at the TSA in the United States as a related example -- is it REALLY about making travelers as safe as possible, or creating jobs for those often otherwise unemployable (a favorite government pasttime these days)? Let's compare TSA's post-9/11 track record versus El Al's -- seen any shoe or underwear bombers (sorry, "alleged" underwear bombers) flying into Tel Aviv lately? TSA is a bad joke, and our enemies know it.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Yaa 101]

It means that the citizens have the duty to make that scheme more expensive.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Jaysyn]

That is a lot of cost. And even if you figure the initial cost is gone after the first year, you still have the cost of paying 1,000 people to watch cameras in order to solve 10 crimes. That is still a lot of cost. 1000 x annual wages or salary, to solve 10 crimes.

The same holds true here. Generally when shortening is discovered, it is rectified & generally costs the city a good hunk of change.

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Also, many cities are removing traffic cameras now, because people are driving safer which has led to a loss of revenue for the police dept. Which I think is hilarious, personally.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-redlights_15met.ART.North.Edition1.468120d.html

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/03/cities-removing/

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[internewt]

His point wasn't a gripe with the system of magistrates courts, it was that magistrates can basically make up rules, and if you break them, you go to prison (do not pass go, do not collect 200UKP).

Oh, and the evidence requirements for ASBOs are much lower than for traditional crimes. Hearsay is allowed in court for ASBO trials!

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[internewt]

A small proportion of installed cameras in the UK are monitored. Most of them are owned privately (in shops etc), and the recording is only looked at if something happens.

And a large segment of private cameras out there are connected to automatic numberplate recognition, and are networked into the state's numberplate tracking databases.

Petrol station forecourts, before you ask.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[internewt]

If somehow a Scientology Party got into power in britain, then I'd start shitting myself about "1984"

Oh, they will be in, in May.

Cameron talks far too much about faith schools.

And prove my point that they'll be in and fucking the country up fast(er), this comment will probably get modded down!

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Get on the ship and sale to the land of freedom....or wait, you guys already did this few hundred years ago...

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[cayenne8]

Hmm..sounds like time to come up with efficient, home made HERF guns...and start bringing these damned droids down to earth.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Exactly. I, too, know some people who have served as magistrates. Perhaps more importantly, I have been a witness in court and seen several magistrates at work. I found the behaviour of those I observed to be exemplary, and they did indeed consult with their "learned colleague" on several occasions while deliberating.

However, that does not mean I think they should have the power to legislate, even if I personally have never seen anyone abuse that power. Likewise, I do not think police officers or PCSOs should have any powers to issue summary fines on their own authority, even though I personally have never seen a false accusation made.

Justice systems need separation of powers and due process for the accused, because any system on that sort of scale is going to make mistakes even if everyone acts with the best of intentions, and the consequences of those mistakes for innocent people can be severe.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Reziac]

Actually there are studies (you can probably find them on thenewspaper.com) showing that *serious* injury-accidents increased by 30% to 50% or so at most intersections where redlight cameras were implemented. (I may misremember the figures but it was something in that range.)

Conversely, there are several studies showing that somewhere around 90-95% of redlight running *and* accidents go away if you just give people another half-second of yellow-light time in which to make a decision.

That the whole thing is absolutely about money and NOT about safety is well-illustrated by the fact that so many of the camera-infested lights have had their yellow time SHORTENED, sometimes below the legal minimum, because this is likewise documented to cause an increase in unintentional redlight-running, and therefore of ticket revenue.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Aphoxema]

Terrorism just doesn't scare me.

Then... I guess it really isn't terrorism!

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[drkim]

How have: "traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates"?
Have people been crashing after being blinded by the strobe lights?

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Red Flayer]

And because it's Britain, there isn't much to worry about.

Says you. This should strike fear into the heart of every fly-tipper out there.

What the hell is fly-tipping anyway? Here in the good ol' US of A, we tip cows. Ya gotta get low for good leverage, and get yer back into it, but cow tipping is a bona fide gentleman's sport 'round these parts.

Are Brits so past weak that they can only tip flies? Surely they got cows somewhere... maybe they just need a big ol' American to show em how its done.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[c6gunner]

LRAD wasn't developed by the brits. Cool vids, though. Always nice to see some cops earning their pay.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[AmiMoJo]

I think the worst one is "incitement to hatred". You can be punished for the actions of others who may have been influenced by something you said.

So say I write on my blog that the Pope is responsible for the deaths of millions and the suffering caused by the AIDS epidemic due to his opposition to contraception. Some idiot reads it and decides all Catholics must also be responsible and then attacks one. I could go to prison for "incitement to religious hatred".

Thoughtcrime plain and simple.

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, that's definitely one of the worst. Asking someone to commit a specific crime is one thing. Helping someone to commit a specific crime is another. I don't mind the law penalising people who do these things, but some vague notion that you are trying to affect someone's feelings and that any actions they take afterwards are somehow your responsibility is a different matter.

Rubber bungs

[MichaelSmith]

The LRAD is a highly directional speaker made of a flat array of piezoelectric transducers, producing intense beam of sound in a 30-degree cone. It can be used as a loudhailer, or deafen the target with a jarring, discordant noise. Some ships now carry LRAD as an anti-pirate measure: It was used to drive off an attack on the Seabourn Spirit off Somalia in 2005.

I recommend UK people carry rubber bungs to put in their ears, in the case of planetary destruction by Vogons and attack by insane police UAVs.

Re:Rubber bungs

[nacturation]

I recommend UK people carry rubber bungs to put in their ears...

Doesn't the bung go in the bunghole?

Re:Rubber bungs

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they're playing the brown note.

Re:Rubber bungs

[Barny]

No, you need Teepee for bunghole!

Re:Rubber bungs

[VShael]

When earplugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have earplugs.

Re:Rubber bungs

[Anonymous Coward]

no. Teepee for YOUR bunghole, bunghole! you're a bunghole, bunghole!
I am from lake titicaca!!

Re:Rubber bungs

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT?

Re:Rubber bungs

[L4t3r4lu5]

deafen the target with a jarring, discordant noise.

I'll take the Pepsi Challenge against one of these devices compared with The Berzerker in concert any day of the week.

Re:Rubber bungs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have oleo? For my holio?

Re:Rubber bungs

[Anonymous Coward]

The LRAD is a highly directional speaker made of a flat array of piezoelectric transducers, producing intense beam of sound in a 30-degree cone. It can be used as a loudhailer, or deafen the target with a jarring, discordant noise. Some ships now carry LRAD as an anti-pirate measure: It was used to drive off an attack on the Seabourn Spirit off Somalia in 2005.

Luckily the UK is the nation responsible for bands link this, and also like this - we've been in training for years to resist this type of jarring, discordant noise.

Re:Rubber bungs

[damien_kane]

Where I came from we have no bunghole
There is but one bunghole, and it is good

not just criminals...

[AliasMarlowe]

British criminals...antisocial motorists

Last I heard, antisocial motoring was rather annoying, but not actually a crime.

"Citizens^W Subjects of the Crown, prepare to be coerced into socially approved behaviours!"

Re:not just criminals...

[xaxa]

British criminals...antisocial motorists

Last I heard, antisocial motoring was rather annoying, but not actually a crime.

Isn't some antisocial behaviour a crime? E.g. disturbing the peace with loud noise at night, which can just as easily be a motorcycle as a PA system.

Other than the first paragraph, the whole article is speculation worthy of the Daily Mail. Paragraph 2:

Surveillance is only the start, however. Military drones quickly moved from reconnaissance to strike, and if the British police follow suit, their drones could be armed

Re:not just criminals...

[delinear]

Last I heard, antisocial motoring was rather annoying, but not actually a crime.

Isn't some antisocial behaviour a crime? E.g. disturbing the peace with loud noise at night, which can just as easily be a motorcycle as a PA system.

True, but then the quote is still wrong to say antisocial motoring when it should say criminal behaviour, otherwise it makes it sound like they're going to be tasering motorists who cut you up at the lights. Which, admittedly, might not be so bad, so long as they wait until they're not driving a heavy piece of machinery before they administer it ;)

Re:not just criminals...

[squiggleslash]

Well, some anti-social motoring isn't criminal per-se, but is nonetheless subject to penalties. Speeding, for instance, is a famous activity for which a person committing it wouldn't be given a criminal record, or risk jail time (unless they're driving really, really, really, fast...) but which does entail fines, a possible loss of license if done frequently enough, and of which the police are generally called in to deal with.

Re:not just criminals...

[Anonymous Coward]

Preposterous, you say ? ;)

  - So was using cameras to snoop on the public.
  - So was being automatically tracked 24H a day with discriminate precision, via your own appliances, portable or not.
  - Ditto for cameras in the same said...
  - Or everywhere, including 'restrooms'.
  - So was regularly facing an iron-curtain style (I do mean that) interrogation and search on even minor flights. Actually, its even a bit worse. More like, a backwoods airport deep withinin the same, with particularly petty and frustrated staff.
  - So was having it spread to lesser forms of public transport on a regular basis.
  - So was having to practically strip to embark on any medium voyage.
  - So was having to pass a screen that would see through your clothes and God knows what else, doing GNW other strange and 'perfectly safe' things to your most essential heritage.
  - So was giving government a free pass to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, on practically a whim. Did I remember to say _anywhere_, specially outside its sovereignity ? Way outside ? Like like axes' of evil used to be famed - and justly reviled - for (James Bond notwithstanding.) ?
  - So was giving coporations the legal right to openly bribe and buy outright their candidates into office, using whatever amount they deem advisable. At least we know that, due to their rigorous and principled ideals, there is no real possibility of these expenses being hidden beneath dodgy accounting, payments to front organizations and charities, etc.
  - So was surrendering all privacy and civil liberty because of a spectacular attack that should have been prevented at several spots along a long line of defenses. Every one of which was ignored, sidetracked or didn't work. Including the Air Force.

    Capitalism has come home to roost.

Re:not just criminals...

[internewt]

Speeding is easy to police, and has lots of case law behind it, so is easy to get a conviction for. As the conviction is generally a fine, policing speed becomes self funding.

There are plenty of other things that occur on the roads, a lot more dangerous than speeding, that routinely gets over looked.

Like the enforcement of suitable distances between vehicles. Every single tail-ending that has ever occurred has happened because the car behind was too close. Whiplash accidents are routine in crashes like this (and nowadays so is just claiming whiplash, no matter what - meaning more expensive insurance all round. So you would be stupid not to claim whiplash if tail-ended, but I digress...).

If maintaining an appropriate gap between vehicles was enforced, then lane discipline would have to be too. But of course, this is starting to sound complicated and expensive. Best just stick to picking on people doing 65 in a 60, etc.!

Re:not just criminals...

[s0l1dsnak3123]

How can you be an antisocial motorist? By driving down a quiet country lane?

Timeline

[Snarf You]

February 10 @ 6:43 PM: When Will AI Surpass Human Intelligence?
February 10 @ 9:45 PM: Six-legged Robot Teaches Itself to Walk
February 11 @ 2:24 AM: Armed Robot Drones to Join UK Police Force

In less than 8 hours we have gone from wondering about AI, to robots that have learned how to walk, to robots that are flying around shooting at people. This is all happening much too fast.

Re:Timeline

[FlyHelicopters]

I welcome our new self learning, walking, flying, shooting, robot AI overlords...

Re:Timeline

[BuFf0k_SPQA]

Well said... This is a worrisome developement, especially if, like me, you live in South Africa, where our government will attempt to implement these half-baked ideas in an even more half-arsed way... Haven't our governments seen the Terminator movies, combined with the all knowing data repository that is google, when machines become self-aware, we will be in some serious trouble, at least in Terminator there were only military systems to worry about... Now we have civil robots that could make the machine's domination of our race that much easier...

Re:Timeline

[thhamm]

February 12 @ 1:24 PM: Humanoid Robots with Sunglasses talk funny Austrian Accent

Re:Timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

February 11 @ 8:32 AM: Toasters take over Earth

Re:Timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

Score 1? Could at least use a 3/Funny. Clearly a very apt Simpsons ref to Kent Brockman's line "And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords" from the episode "Deep Space Homer". Kudos!

Re:Timeline

[JustOK]

Worst. Attempt to explain a lame and obscure inside joke in order to get modded up. Ever.

Re:Timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

Patch Tuesday @ 1:00 AM: .....Does Killbot 2010 want to send an error report to Microsoft?

Re:Timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

Score 2? Could at least use a 3/Funny. Clearly a very apt Simpsons ref to Jeff Albertson, commonly known as Comic Book Guy's line "Worst. Episode. Ever!" from the episodes "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show", "Saddlesore Galactica", and "Worst Episode Ever". Kudos!

Re:Timeline

[PhilHibbs]

Another nice Simpsons reference - the Comic Book Guy, "Last night's Itchy and Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever!", from "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show". Kodos!

Re:Timeline

[icebike]

Does a remotely piloted aircraft even qualify as a Robot?

Its not like these things are autonomous or have even the remotest capability of independent decision making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_HERTI

Re:Timeline

[RDW]

'Does a remotely piloted aircraft even qualify as a Robot?'

If an xkcd mouseover says they are, that's good enough for me:

http://xkcd.com/652/

Re:Timeline

[neumayr]

From the Wikipedia article:

To achieve a UAV that can safely fly within civilian airspace, BAE Systems is developing a "sense and avoid" system for HERTI, utilising a radar and electro-optical systems.

Sounds like autonomous decision making to me.

Re:Timeline

[peragrin]

the AI can be in a satellite remotely controlling the drones.

Re:Timeline

[ultranova]

Its not like these things are autonomous or have even the remotest capability of independent decision making.

In that case it would be horribly dangerous to use them in urban situations, because if the control signal is interrupted, they come crashing down. At the very least they require autopilot with staying stationary, collision avoidance, and returning to preset coordinates (the base) if control is lost and not restored within a certain time, avoiding collisions along the way.

Re:Timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

cops are becoming the terrorists.
you should have more concern for their behavior.

gort 2.0

Re:Timeline

[timeOday]

Its not like these things are autonomous or have even the remotest capability of independent decision making.

Obviously that depends on how you define "decision" (which you may believe to be inherently different than "calculation"); however UAVs do have the capability to make as many independent decisions as are required for an airline pilot to complete an average flight, for whatever that's worth.

Re:Timeline

[biryokumaru]

Like if the "sky" had a big "net"work in it?

Re:Timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

You mispelled kudos.

Re:Timeline

[damien_kane]

No he didn't
I voted for Kodos.

Re:Timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

February 12 @ 1:255 PM "Let's put another shrimp on the barbie!!!"

What could possibly go wrong...

[jack2000]

Sure why not. Why not make them sniper bots while you're at it, throw in nuclear powered autonomous plains too...
FFS!

Re:What could possibly go wrong...

[MichaelSmith]

throw in nuclear powered autonomous plains too...

Autonomous geographical features? Sounds like a slowly developing problem to me.

Re:What could possibly go wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

I favor autonomous forests. You don't need that much food and the extra production is worth it.

Re:What could possibly go wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have thirty seconds to comply...

Re:What could possibly go wrong...

[JustOK]

Maybe plains as the nose on your face.

Re:What could possibly go wrong...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Anybody every notice how similar the words orogenesis and erogenous are?

Plus, you have: Thrusting, dikes, cleavage

Geologists are perverts.

Re:What could possibly go wrong...

[KDR_11k]

Also flying forests give plausible deniability if you accidentally tree the wrong person.

Re:What could possibly go wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Or the children's children's .... children, as the case may be.

Re:I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one..

[ls671]

Hehe, ignore parent post, picture is misleading. It seems TFA and the summary is talking about flying robots, hehe ;-))

Hurrah!

[zmollusc]

Neato! No longer will a call to the cops that your house has been burgled and there are footprints and fingerprints all over the place result in a response of 'we are too busy to investigate, here's a crime number for your insurance claim'. Now it will be 'we will have a unit over the area within minutes, here's a crime number for your insurance claim'. Still no investigation, but maybe the drone can measure how cars are parked and issue some tickets.

Re:Hurrah!

[MichaelSmith]

Still no investigation, but maybe the drone can measure how cars are parked and issue some tickets.

It will Stun^h^h^h^hDeafen everybody within a 100 metres radius on the assumption they were involved in the crime. Lucky you!

Re:Hurrah!

[davester666]

Or maybe "...and here's the number somebody in your vicinity should call if our drone mistakes you for the burglar..."

or

[BhaKi]

Your Rights On roads

Re:or

[mrxak]

Realistically stuff with no relation to the internet has been put under the YRO category many times before.

Re:or

[memnock]

roads which i will never willingly follow to the UK. not that i was planning any trips overseas, but i don't think i'll ever consider going to the UK again. i enjoyed my one visit there years ago, but at this point, i don't know if i'd be able to get out, if they let me in.

Re:or

[ddusza]

Yanni's Really Offensive

From the people who brought you Skynet...

[Skratchez]

another paradigm shift in law enforcement. Keeping the keyboard cops on their butts and the streets of England safe, with Hunter Taser bots!

Oblig ED-209

[Anonymous Coward]

Drop your weapon, you have 15 seconds to comply.... /inverse jaguar engine sound fx starts

Idiots on parade

[hyades1]

Anything sub-lethal will be childishly easy to defeat, once it's been seen in action a few times. And no doubt the methods used will quickly be adapted by terrorists for Third World use on the more dangerous versions of the drones.

I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.

One hint: how will the cops look when they taser a minor who happens to be dressed like the alleged criminal, and how difficult would it be to engineer such a substitution?

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anne Thwacks]

Anything sub-lethal will be childishly easy to defeat, once it's been seen in action a few times.

Now you've blown it! They will have to use leathal force on people caught littering! (We knew that was coming, we live here.)

Re:Idiots on parade

[cgenman]

I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.

I'm guessing armed robot drones in the UK aren't there to catch Ocean's 11 level criminals. Quelling soccer riots, following fleeing vehicles, traveling along with protest groups... the drones are probably going to replace the more expensive and slower helicopter crews in the UK police force. Most of the time you just need to let people know that the police are watching, and they'll behave. Or they'll panic and run, and be followed.

Re:Idiots on parade

[zmollusc]

I don't understand your hint. I don't know how things work in your area, but round here when cops kill or frame someone it is hushed up by cops and all the evidence is 'lost'. If there is enough of a fuss made, an investigation is held by cops and the results are heavily censored as they are 'not in the public interest'.

So yeah, if a cop tasers an innocent minor and gets found out, that cop will get suspended on full pay for a few years while an investigation chugs along, then when the fuss has died down and the not guilty verdict brought in he will be reinstated and get the promotions he missed out on while suspended.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Allicorn]

I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.

Assuming the designers are also not experts and themselves spent less than your generous minute wondering whether anyone might not want to be blinded/deafened/tasered by their device, then you should be well ahead of the game.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring it on!
Birdstrikes (think Trafalgar Sq), hitting power lines and the like, downdrafts between big buildings, or letting a RC model do a banzai run. I suppose they will do a Bruce Willis and fly down and into the tube system too.Not to mention wont work in FOG - just like the idiot who thought up this one.
Now fox hunting is out, country squires can have a bit more target practice.

Going to look great mounted on a bedroom wall, or auctioned off on ebay

Re:Idiots on parade

[Rollgunner]

Anything sub-lethal will be childishly easy to defeat, once it's been seen in action a few times.

Yeah, all you have to do to defeat a Bucha Effect weapon is to turn off your central nervous system!

Re:Idiots on parade

[delinear]

I don't understand your hint. I don't know how things work in your area, but round here when cops kill or frame someone it is hushed up by cops and all the evidence is 'lost'. If there is enough of a fuss made, an investigation is held by cops and the results are heavily censored as they are 'not in the public interest'.

So yeah, if a cop tasers an innocent minor and gets found out, that cop will get suspended on full pay for a few years while an investigation chugs along, then when the fuss has died down and the not guilty verdict brought in he will be reinstated and get the promotions he missed out on while suspended.

Worst case, they'll give him the opportunity to resign on full pension and land a lucrative book deal, but yeah, they reserve that for the truly corrupt and incompetent.

Re:Idiots on parade

[jimicus]

Assuming the designers are also not experts and themselves spent less than your generous minute wondering whether anyone might not want to be blinded/deafened/tasered by their device, then you should be well ahead of the game.

Past experience of the British government's uncanny ability with technology suggests that unless these drones can make money by handing out fines, the GP is indeed well ahead of the game.

Re:Idiots on parade

[ShooterNeo]

Childishly easy? There is equipment that can protect against directed sound weapons...a huge, bulky, helmet like apparatus that uses several things to block sound.

There's equipment that can stop tasers...basically a faraday cage around your body.

Heck, there's equipment that usually stops the low powered bullets used by cops. Just wrap your body in kevlar vests and kevlar pants and handgun bullets won't be able to touch you.

Now, as you waddle down the street swathed in protective gear, it'll be trivial for the ground cops to surround you and beat you to the ground with billy clubs. It'll also be a lot harder for you to get away after you commit a crime by trying to disable a drone.

Every weapon has a defense. As you may notice, the defense against lethal weapons is different from the one against the currently available nonlethal ones. So if the cops have all these weapons available, it'll be a lot harder for you to avoid them all.

Re:Idiots on parade

[calmofthestorm]

We must dissent.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

It is a pretty safe assumption.

The history of things like this is a history of failure. The main reason being that these kind of measures tend to be outrageously difficult and expensive to build and put in the field, but relatively cheap and easy to defeat or destroy.

Take, for example, traffic-light cameras, intended to catch people who run red lights. My city spent something like $150,000.00 for each one. Yet, all it takes is someone in a halloween mask, a long stick, some string, a little duct tape, and a can of spray paint to totally defeat it. Assuming you wear a used mask and find a stick somewhere, the cost is about $3.00 and the time it takes is about 15 minutes, if you are in the area.

Granted, this might not be so easy to take down as a camera on a pole. But unless it's stealthed, today it does not take much to easily (and pretty cheaply) make a heat-seeking missile from off-the-store-shelf parts, in your garage. Not as easily as a stick, and not as cheaply as spray paint, but several orders of magnitude less than it cost them to build the damned thing.

Heck, it could be a community project, with all the local teenagers making their own variations.

Re:Idiots on parade

[zmollusc]

Well, if the drones can stun evildoers for collection by ground forces, just give them a cut of the Information Retrieval Procedure fees collected from the evildoer. Simple.
 

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

Or a helmet with cheap video cameras that were hacked to either not register or to filter out the flashes. It isn't that hard. If you have more money, get a set of military goggles with limiting circuitry.

Of more concern, I think, would be something like the Active Denial System. But no doubt that is defeatable, too. I strongly suspect that silvered fabric or plastic would prevent the vast majority of the radiation from reaching the skin.

Re:Idiots on parade

[mspohr]

Or...

You could take this route which is more permanent...

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

Re:Idiots on parade

[_4rp4n3t]

Wait, did you just equate building a heat-seeking missile to taping a can of spray paint to a pole?

Re:Idiots on parade

[TranceThrust]

Sister Miriam, is that you?

Re:Idiots on parade

[delinear]

Note it could also be more cheaply defeated by, for instance, walking into a shopping centre - good luck covering all the exits once you've lost sight of the suspect and they sneak out in a bunch of other people. We'll literally be paying police to play "Where's Wally" - in this case the answer is, "he's the one looking at the camera feed". I wonder what the flight time is on one of those things anyway, I guess you wouldn't have to hide for too long before it returned to base.

And that's without even considering inexpensive missile alternatives - I used to be pretty keen with a home-made catapult when I was younger. I can see this becoming a fun past-time for our troubled youth. Still, if it keeps them out of trouble...

Re:Idiots on parade

[KDR_11k]

Launch an anti air missile and you'll have SWAT teams (or their local equivalent) on your ass in no time. You aren't even allowed to carry a knife in the UK, if you bring missiles to that party they'll think you're with Al Qaeda and shoot you on sight.

Re:Idiots on parade

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, sure, run around in full armor, standing out like a sore thumb. That'll avoid suspicion! You do realize they can still send ground forces after you?

Re:Idiots on parade

[neumayr]

Most of the time you just need to let people know that the police are watching, and they'll behave.

To behave, to submit, fine line there..

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

These days? Yeah, pretty much.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, but I was speaking theoretically, not necessarily practically. My point was simply that there are probably some simple and inexpensive to defeat these expensive anti-personnel technologies.

And those silvered-mylar "Space Blankets" have a real layer of metal foil sandwiched between plastic, are available in the stores here for about $2.00, and weigh about one ounce. Two of them and some duct tape -- or even plain Scotch tape -- should serve to make a passable suit. No need for "full armor".

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

I realise that you have been moderated up because you have a female name, but you've twice made an assertion without proof.

First, retract your, "My city spent something like $150,000.00 for each one," (why did you put the ".00"? dramatic emphasis? leave that for good authors) - local government does not spend money as your naive mind might, and any technical spend will be dwarfed by the bureaucratic spend, i.e. the channeling of your money for their personal convenience. They have the guns, and you don't, and you would do exactly the same if you had. If they didn't include it as part of the camera budget, it would be part of some other budget.

Next, you have affirmed that building a heat seeking missile is to be equated with taping a can of spray paint to a pole. Using only components you can buy from an average town's stores and the approximate time it takes to tape a can of spray paint to a pole, please provide step-by-step evidence. Remember that this device has to actually work, and not miss its target and meet with a hapless motorist. Handwaving with a thermistor or an infrared detector in the style of this article on the first heat-seeking missile isn't actually answering the question.

Re:Idiots on parade

[u38cg]

Since as far as I can tell the suggestion that these things will be carrying weaponry is entirely a fiction dreamt up by Wired, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Add that to chavs hunting them for sport and I don't really see much of an issue.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

This makes it sound simpler than it is, and it costs a bit, but other than incidentals like epoxy, about all it would take is this (assuming it is not some kind of stealthed craft). Don't try this at home.

Body: Heavy-duty cardboard tube. A section of tube from a roll of carpet should do the trick if it is one of those with a thick wall, but even that is a bit large. It would have sufficient strength. But a lightweight metal tube also works.

Fins: Metal or strong wood. They have to be sturdy enough to not distort at mach 1+, and take some heat. Balsa and plastic are definitely not suitable. (And you probably want to make the fins swept to reduce drag.) The attachment must be STRONG.

Control surfaces: SMALL aileron-like panels on the back of the fins. (At high speed it doesn't take much control surface or deflection to change direction.) Vectoring the nozzle is not an option. It is a rocket, not a jet. Usually most of the trajectory will be coasting. Engine burn time will probably not be more than about 1.5 seconds.

Control system: I initially put some details here but I am going to leave that out. I know what approach I would use, but I don't want to be accused of being one of the Bad Guys for putting some kind of full-blown missile plans on the internet. Cost though for the electronics should very easily be under $100.

Business end: your choice here. In some cases I am pretty sure just a hard point should be sufficient to discombobulate an engine. If it is a low-flying craft you might reasonably expect your interceptor to be moving 600 mph or faster. If I were really some kind of freedom fighter against an oppressive tyranny or something, I might use something besides just a point. But weight is an issue.

Propulsion: G-class model rocket engine. Available mail-order for around $30. In some states you need a license to buy them.

Finish: It is important that the finish be very smooth, even polished. The tip of the nose and the leading edges of the fins need special attention. And they should at the very least be coated with heat-resistant paint. That might be a good idea for the whole thing.

That's a pretty rough layout, and might need some tweaking. But possible? Heck yeah. (And note: even if you build something like this just for a hobby rocket, it is VERY dangerous. Adults only. A high degree of common sense and caution required.)

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no. This is a 'system', you see. A business. The machinery has to be kept in motion. All for the public well being of our society. Of your family. Your parents. And brothers and sisters. Don't you care about them ?

Let me explain. Those 'extra options', only appear on version 2.0, in the 'Invulnerable' series. For God's sake, man, think of the expenses-paid business trips to the security and defense fairs !

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm confused. Am I supposed to shout "Hor-ry-wooyd! Hor-r-y-wooyd!", or "Fourth of July!". Actually, for once, The Marseillaise might be a bit more adequate.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow, just as simple as attaching a spray can to a pole.

You're an idiot, and your post is typical of the kind of random collection of Star Trek style pseudo-science that has turned Slashdot into a dorkfest.

You have scrambled together a few comments on how to build a hobby rocket, and conveniently "but I am going to leave that out" the challenging aspect, which is to actually build something that seeks heat rather than just being shot into the air!

I must thank you for the "it is important that the finish be very smooth, even polished". This completely cracked me up. Yes, when you are building a hobby heat-seeking rocket with a carpet tube, it's okay to skip over the actual control details, but for goodness sake remember to polish vigourously!

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

Local criminals figured that one out long ago. They just tip the police. Or team up with some local politician. Or both. Shares are cut. Quotas are set. Territories laid out.

Amazingly er, 'civilized', really.

Not that it would ever happen there, of course. That would as ridiculous as being followed into the underground by a gang of public servants, grabbed from behind and repeatedly shot in the head - with full official sanction, ointments included. Anyway any half-decent loon has a deadman switch set from the strapon. Would have served them right, if they had the right guy. I may be excused for imagining that they also knew that. It's supposed to be their job.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

Oh wow, just as simple as attaching a spray can to a pole.

You're an idiot, and your post is typical of the kind of random collection of Star Trek style pseudo-science that has turned Slashdot into a dorkfest.

You have scrambled together a few comments on how to build a hobby rocket, and conveniently "but I am going to leave that out" the challenging aspect, which is to actually build something that seeks heat rather than just being shot into the air!

I see. So do you want me to publish instructions on how to make C4 on Slashdot, too? (Not that it matters, because I don't know.) If you really expect me to give detailed plans for an actual heat-seeking missile on a public forum, then it's not I who is being the idiot. If you really want the other part, go Google how to track light a light electronically, then adapt it for infrared. It's not genius-level material, you know. On a TV show this last season, some people built a tracker for solar panels using spare parts on a TV show. It's not much harder than that.

If you had preferred, I could have given you those details and left out the rocket part. But if you think I will give you both, then, well... have a nice day.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

That should have read, "... using spare parts they found lying around."

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

I realise that you have been moderated up because you have a female name...

In my experience so far on Slashdot, it hasn't worked that way.

... but you've twice made an assertion without proof.

You want me to prove something, for your personal benefit, on Slashdot?

"First, retract your, "My city spent something like $150,000.00 for each one,"

I shall retract nothing. I happen to have some knowledge of what goes on in my local government, because I make an actual effort to keep up with such things, for my own reasons.

" (why did you put the ".00"? dramatic emphasis? leave that for good authors)"

I put the .00 in because there are people on Slashdot from countries other than the USA, who use "," for the decimal and "." as a thousands separator. I wanted to make it clear that I meant "one hundred fifty thousand dollars", not "one hundred fifty dollars with a misplaced decimal".

" - local government does not spend money as your naive mind might, and any technical spend will be dwarfed by the bureaucratic spend, i.e. the channeling of your money for their personal convenience."

What did you even mean by that? It's gibberish. Except for the channeling of money part. I understand the concept, but where do you propose that it happened in this particular case?

"They have the guns, and you don't, and you would do exactly the same if you had. If they didn't include it as part of the camera budget, it would be part of some other budget."

Yep. Gibberish. Let's discuss this a bit:

(1) The statement that they have the guns and I don't does not necessarily follow. I am an American citizen. There is a very good chance that, person-for-person, I have as many guns as they do, or even more. But don't expect me to tell you whether I, personally, actually do. I am not that stupid.

(2) Are you trying to say that they would have spent the money anyway, on something else? Because given what you wrote just before that I am not sure. But if that is anything like what you meant, it makes no difference to what I wrote. They might have spent it on something that is actually good for the community, rather than this kind of crap.

"Using only components you can buy from an average town's stores and the approximate time it takes to tape a can of spray paint to a pole, please provide step-by-step evidence."

Kiss my what???

First, I did not say, anywhere, that it would take 15 minutes to do that, and I strongly implied in the basic layout that it would take a lot more. If by "equate" you mean that you think I meant that the two things were nearly identical, then you are wrong. I only meant to suggest that it wasn't difficult to do.

"Handwaving with a thermistor or an infrared detector in the style of this article on the first heat-seeking missile isn't actually answering the question."

Why in the world would I want to get within a city block of a thermistor, in this context? That is about the least-sensitive and hardest to use device you could have mentioned. This isn't 1946.

Your demands that I prove things to you sway me not in the slightest. I owe you nothing. And even if I did, given the attitude you have displayed I would still tell you to go to hell.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

If they run - they're VC! If they stay still - they're well-trained VC!

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one is saying that it is genius level material, you strawman you. Building a rocket with a precise control mechanism based on heat is not the same as building a tracker for solar panels! Also, "I saw it on TV" is almost as bad as "I read it on Wikipedia", unless you have reproduced it yourself.

Many geeks have built simple rockets which fly in one direction -- that's the easy part, and the part easiest to hand wave a convincing description of. Your excuse in your torrent of anti-government posts appears to be that you are so incredibly competent that your door will immediately be beaten down if you fill in any relevant details to back up your wild suppositions.

I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Your refuge to quoting unnamed TV programmes makes you literally an armchair scientist. Stop it, get out, and achieve things which you can come back and talk about. Your wild claims may gain moderator points on Slashdot from dabblers as ignorant as you, but you are achieving nothing.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anne Thwacks]

Past experience of the British government's uncanny ability with technology suggests

Any drones that are actually delivered before they are obsolete will catch government ministers stuffing loot into their pockets, but accidentally kill innocent bystanders instead.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

The point still remains that I can tape a spray can to a pole faster than I can build your retarded missle. I could probably build the spray pole faster than I could google and find direction on how to tape a spray can to a pole. I would probably even have time to polish my spray pole vigorously.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Areyoukiddingme]

Blah blah blah and all of it from an anonymous coward. Oh shut up.

It's a drone. It flies in mostly a straight line. If it's following someone, you can even get it to fly exactly where you want it to. It does not have sophisticated threat detectors. It's being piloted by a bored civil servant. YOU DON'T NEED A HEAT SEEKER! Point and shoot in generally the right direction and you'll hit it. You make it sound like this is some crazy hard superscience. The hard part isn't blowing up an expensive drone. The hard part is building a weapon that can do it without leaving sufficient forensic evidence to track your ass down later.

Don't you have a TV? Haven't you seen what a few disgruntled citizens can do to the US military in full battle dress in Iraq? Do you think it's harder to take potshots at a cop's RC plane? Stop blathering anonymously. You're boring.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Reziac]

"My point was simply that there are probably some simple and inexpensive to defeat these expensive anti-personnel technologies."

And I think it's important for a free people to understand HOW to defeat anti-citizenry technologies, too. Thanks for the informative posts.

Re:Idiots on parade

[rabiddeity]

Excellent reminder. I wish I had mod points right now.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop typing, white knight, she won't give you sex.

Jane Q. Fantasist was equating building a heat-seeking missile with taping a can of spray paint to a pole. That is the topic of discussion. A counterargument is not, "Well, uh, well, you could just shoot straight at the target, that'd destroy it!" It's a completely different assertion. You might as well offer me the riposte that enough research, enough time and a sufficiently strong saw would allow you to cut through any communications cables/poles required at some point to operate the enemy device. And a saw is so low-tech!

You're an idiot, and your prize is a demonstration of your foolishness immortalised on the Internet.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience so far on Slashdot, it hasn't worked that way.

You're accepting the lie which gets every woman of low intelligence into bed: the dishonest compliment of the desperate male. There are many places for talented men and women alike to flourish and to be given honest praise and criticism, but a dorky entertainment site is not one of them.

You want me to prove something, for your personal benefit, on Slashdot?

At any point on the surface of the Earth, a cloud resembling Hitler playing the bagpipes is visible over the horizon. You want me to prove this, for your personal benefit, on Slashdot?

I put the .00 in because there are people on Slashdot from countries other than the USA, who use "," for the decimal and "." as a thousands separator.

If you want to dip your toe in the rhetorical arts, you need to start off by not assuming that your audience is stupid. Then you would use whitespace, which is fairly internationally unambiguous. Finally, if you were genuinely multiculturally aware, you would make it clear whether you're referring to Australian or Canadian dollars.

What did you even mean by that? It's gibberish.

Most local government spending involves a cut to friends and family by careful choice of preferred dealers/consultants. That money will be quoted as part of the budget for some particular spend, but it might as well be specified as part of any spend, as any choice is equally dishonest. So, $150k hasn't been spent on cameras, and if you'd seen $150k on the budget sheet for cause_you_believe_in, the figure would have been similarly inflated. You are thus wasting time to quote such a figure. Understand?

) The statement that they have the guns and I don't does not necessarily follow. I am an American citizen. There is a very good chance that, person-for-person, I have as many guns as they do, or even more.

Anyone who claims they have enough guns today to defend themselves against The Man is automatically a loon.

If by "equate" you mean that you think I meant that the two things were nearly identical, then you are wrong.

Say what you mean. Don't wait until you are beaten to within an inch of your verbal life then tell me I'm wrong for taking your words in good faith.

Why in the world would I want to get within a city block of a thermistor, in this context?

If you'd read the article I so unhelpfully provided you, describing some first researches into heat seeking technology, you'd notice a handwaving discussion of thermistors. The point is not that they are inappropriate - the point is that they describe research which was actually done, rather than your fantasy world. So even that article gave me more results than you have so far provided.

And even if I did, given the attitude you have displayed I would still tell you to go to hell.

Welcome to the Internet, where we judge a person on ability rather than attitude.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

Stop typing, white knight, she won't give you sex.

Jane Q. Fantasist was equating building a heat-seeking missile with taping a can of spray paint to a pole. That is the topic of discussion. A counterargument is not, "Well, uh, well, you could just shoot straight at the target, that'd destroy it!" It's a completely different assertion. You might as well offer me the riposte that enough research, enough time and a sufficiently strong saw would allow you to cut through any communications cables/poles required at some point to operate the enemy device. And a saw is so low-tech!

You're an idiot, and your prize is a demonstration of your foolishness immortalised on the Internet.

Wow. For someone who has added exactly nothing to this otherwise amusing conversation, this person sure is full of vitriol.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Jane Q. Public]

The point still remains that I can tape a spray can to a pole faster than I can build your retarded missle. I could probably build the spray pole faster than I could google and find direction on how to tape a spray can to a pole. I would probably even have time to polish my spray pole vigorously.

(To the rest of you, yes, I admit that I am indulging this person when he doesn't deserve it. Forgive me.)

Methinks that polishing your pole is, figuratively speaking, about all you have been doing here.

Re:Idiots on parade

[Shompol]

And this is how you build a supersonic jet capable of interstellar travel:
1. Body: Heavy-duty cardboard tube..a lightweight metal tube also works.
2...

Re:Idiots on parade

[hyades1]

I just bought an infrared motion sensor/burglar alarm for $25. The sensor itself is tiny and has trivially small power requirements.

Re:Idiots on parade

[hyades1]

Although you mentioned one specific method for making a drone owner's life miserable, I believe you also caught the sense of what I was trying to convey. My personal first choice would be misdirection and spoofing, but I have to admit there's something very appealing about a hundred buck SAM taking out a hundred grand Nosey Parker.

Maybe if I illustrate the point with a historical example some of these literal-minded idiots will finally catch on: During the military action against Serbia, the US got hammered on the international stage for taking out hospitals, schools and the Chinese Embassy from the air. It was found out afterward that some nasty-minded Serbs had snuck up onto the roofs of various "Places You Shouldn't Bomb" and set up unshielded microwave oven emitters. US pilots thought they'd found SAM sites and obligingly took them out. Per-Target Cost to the scumbag: Ten bucks for an old microwave oven. Cost to the US: one or two multi-million dollar munitions and a world-wide reputation for carelessly blowing up women, children and foreign diplomats.

Any time a government deploys devices like those discussed, innocent people are going to get hurt. The specific form of response isn't important. It might be social engineering, it might be a cute little SAM, it might be some kind of low-grade armour that increases your odds without weighing you down. Whatever the outcome, you can rest assured it will be asymmetric warfare at its sneaky best. And the jerks who actually spent money on those drones will wind up looking like the prats they truly are.

It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones...

[VendettaMF]

Dammit you guys...

1984 and Brazil (movie not country) are not bloody HOWTO guides!

Well I for one...

[Anarki2004]

I think you know where this is going...

Checkmate

[nightfire-unique]

Game over. :(

Not impossible, but very unlikely

[NoNeeeed]

This is a highly speculative article, assuming that because these drones can carry weapons that they will.

While I wouldn't put it past the Home Office to want to do this, I'd be surprised if the Police were too keen.

Here in the UK there is a strange dichotomy, we seem perfectly happy to be watched all the time, but the idea of armed police is an absolute no go.

Riot police in the UK don't even use water cannon, and rubber bullets haven't been used by british police in decades. There are a few areas which have introduced a handful of Tasers, but these are used by specialist armed response units, not the average bobby on the beat. The idea of launching anything potentially dangerous from the air seem highly unlikely when they don't even use it on the ground.

Of course that doesn't stop the police from being violent, but when they are it tends to be national news for weeks after. See the death of Ian Tomlinson and the controversial "ketteling" technique used at the demonstrations in the summer for good examples.

The UK Police are currently trying desperately trying to improve their public image after a lot of bad press from the 2009 demos, and the ongoing harassment of photographers and the abuse of the Section 44 Stop and Search powers. Doing something like this would put them back to square one the moment it goes wrong.

So while not impossible, this report seemed to be highly speculative and purely designed to get clicks and build paranoia.

For all their flaws, the UK police are not actually idiots, and in a land where police are not armed, and using a baton in a riot is considered heavy handed, let alone water cannon and rubber bullets, launching Tasers from the sky would be public relations disaster.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[sa1lnr]

"not the average bobby on the beat"

And when was the last time you saw one of those?

In my area of North London it's weeks maybe even months between sightings.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[VShael]

Yes, the death of Ian Tomlinson was a horrific example of police brutality out of control. One that would not be out-of-place in a fascist dictatorship. And yes, it was big news for weeks afterwards.

So was the police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Remind me again, in each case, who was held responsible for these murders? Do we know their names? Were they jailed?

The answer is a resounding No in all cases.

So please, stop telling us we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt, that this report is only to fuel paranoia.

When it comes to the police in the UK, their own actions have demonstrated that paranoia is necessary and healthy.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[delinear]

Of course that doesn't stop the police from being violent, but when they are it tends to be national news for weeks after. See the death of Ian Tomlinson and the controversial "ketteling" technique used at the demonstrations in the summer for good examples.

While I mostly agree with your summary of the likelihood of seeing armed drones, I have to say when it comes to police violence, when it's found out it is national news for weeks after, but how many incidents never get discovered or reported? They even tried to cover up Ian Tomlinson's death for the first couple of days and it's only the advent of camera phones and the video evidence they captured that revealed their lies. How many times has something like this happened in the past and not been discovered - as recently as five years earlier even the truth behind Tomlinson's death would probably have never been revealed, this is a rare case of the surveillance environment coming back to bite the police. No wonder they are so against the public using cameras around them.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[NoNeeeed]

I see quite a few, mixed with those PCSO pretend cops. Although to be fair the PCSOs in our area are pretty good.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

A book you may find interesting, about the issues you describe above.

The title is The Technology of Political Control., written in 1977 by Carol Ackroyd, Karen Margolis, Jonathan Rosenhead, Tim Shallice. Penguin Paperback, ISBN 0140219439

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[rabbitfood]

...but the idea of armed police is an absolute no go...launching Tasers from the sky would be public relations disaster.

First, the UK's armed police is significantly on the rise (for the Met, deployments have risen over 50% in six years, despite firearm incidents falling), and they're almost part of the landscape in London. Most of them are still static patrols of high-profile locations, but the Met has been actively planning for routine armed patrols.

The UK Police also seem immune to legal boundaries - their retention of DNA and the use of 'stop-and-search' have both been ruled illegal, with no discernible effect to date. More worryingly, even in high-profile cases of physical abuse, manslaughter and credit-card fraud, officers have been quietly rewarded rather than disciplined.

Secondly, they're getting much better at PR. If the Guardian is right, they started using the spy drones to scour the coast for immigrants: "There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a 'good news' story to the public rather than more 'big brother'." And, since then, they've been practicing on the BNP (paradoxically an anti-immigration minority party with a poor reputation).

It would be utterly wrong to conclude that the UK police are power-hungry, trigger-happy thugs with mental deficiencies, lethal toys, immunity from sanction and slick PR skills. But it would be incautious not to consider the possibility.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Rogerborg]

2005 would like its analysis back. Tasers are now being issued and used by street Plod in many forces.

How many of the taserings reported above did you read about "for weeks after"? The beauty of taser is that it's the perfect punishment and compliance tool. No big bruises, no lasting damage except in rare cases, where the excuse is always "underlying medical condition".

(Some) Plod who don't have them say they don't want them. Plod who have them love them, and will never go back. Police PR is about covering up their actions, not about altering them.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[jjoelc]

Great... so it is unlikely to happen in the UK... Cops here in America will be drooling all over as soon as the UK "proves" that this is a good idea. And other countries are even less likely to hold such qualms about it...

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[couchslug]

There is almost no violent crime in the UK by US standards (suggesting the surveillance state pays off), and a couple of dead guys at the hands of police is a trifle for a country that size. Let's not get emotional over tiny numbers. Further, if the public objected to a surveillance state they'd be politically active against it.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[golden age villain]

There is almost no violent crime in the UK by US standards (suggesting the surveillance state pays off), [...]

Nonsense, there is almost no violent crime in most of the Western world by US standards. It doesn't say anything about the efficiency of surveillance in the UK but rather about the climate in the US.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[netpixie]

I walked for an hour in London yesterday and saw absolutely hundreds.

Everywhere I looked there was another Policeman staring at me. To tell you the truth, it began to worry me after a while.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Heed00]

In relation to the Jean Charles de Menezes case, the officer in charge, Cressida Dick, has actually been promoted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/menezes-london

Not much accountability going around in the U.K.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Caue]

jean charles, brazilian immigrant shot in the head by the police in broad daylight would disagree if he wasn't so busy pushing dasies. it was just after the terrorist attack, but still.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[neumayr]

Even though I wouldn't argue against your assessment of the article's motivation, it does fuel further speculation. Even though armed UAVs might never be seen in Britain, the technology won't go away and people will be tempted to use it. Most likely against people lacking the means to defend themselves.
Dictatorships come to mind.
I don't know, how does the UK stand on supplying weapons to dictatorships? Same as every other "developed" country I'd guess...

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[the_womble]

The idea of launching anything potentially dangerous from the air seem highly unlikely when they don't even use it on the ground.

Especially after something goes wrong a few times. It is not easy to hit the right thing from an aircraft, so once a few kids/old peopple/obvious innocents have been tasered, or one of these has been flow into a house, it will get very unpopular.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Zedekiah]

"not the average bobby on the beat"

And when was the last time you saw one of those?

In my area of North London it's weeks maybe even months between sightings.

Last? Earlier this morning. Time before? A couple of days ago. Any evening I go out into town there's a few wandering. There's usually one patrolling the rest of town too. I'm not fan of the police, but I see them quite often.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Zedekiah]

To address your points - yes, violent crime is relatively low, but even ONE dead guy at the hands of the police is somethign that should be investigated and dealt with, and is a major problem. No police officer should be killing people needlessly, nevermind innocent people. And people are objected to it - politicians, on the other hand, are not. And while we do not have the US bipartisan system, none of the major parties are for stepping down this. Massive voter apathy doesn't help things.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[poena.dare]

UK Bobbies > Mississippi Sheriff Deputies

Can I move to the UK, please?

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

The death of Ian Tomlinson would be well out of place in a dictatorship. He was a random passer-by. So was Jean Charles de Menezes. Dictators murder their opponents. Killing two random people by mistake over four years is an extremely poor score for a police state.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Z8]

Do you have any statistics to back this up? I went to http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime and added up the per capita statistics for murder, rapes, and assaults and it looks like the UK has more violent crime than the US. The US has more murders, but that is a relatively small percentage of violent crime.

This article also says Britain has more violent crime than the US, and has the most crime in Europe. I know it's easy mod points to say anything bad about the U.S., but reasonable people need to try to avoid the temptation unless it's factual.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[ChinggisK]

Uh, what? You did your math wrong, that website shows that the US has higher per capita crimes in ALL of the categories you mentioned. The only thing the UK is higher in is 'total crimes'.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[DerekLyons]

What I find more interesting that you've decided they're guilty, seemingly on little to no evidence and contrary to the results of official investigations.
 
 

So please, stop telling us we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt, that this report is only to fuel paranoia.

You're correct. Your paranoia seems to require no further fuel.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[VShael]

Yes, but the killing of random civilians by the police, with not so much as a reprimand (or better yet, a promotion) would be quite normal in a dictatorship, even if it didn't happen every day.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Z8]

Nevermind, I looked at it again and you are right (I think I transposed two originally). If you add the three categories to get total violent crimes per 1000 people, you get 7.9 violent crimes in UK vs 7.6 in the US.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[shutdown -p now]

Let's not get emotional over tiny numbers.

Given the subject at hand, it's not a tiny number. Even one is one too many.

Either the rights of citizens are respected (and then those who violate them - including any government officials, such as policemen - are punished for violating them), or they're not.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[shutdown -p now]

There's nothing really wrong with police carrying weapons that are suited to task at hand - the article you linked to specifically mentions "units armed with submachine guns to patrol areas of London plagued by violent drug gangs", which makes sense to me (patrols, that is, not the existence of such areas). But only so long as police officers have a proven track record of using lethal weapons responsibly.

Which, in the case of UK, seems to not be there.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[internewt]

"not the average bobby on the beat"

And when was the last time you saw one of those?

In my area of North London it's weeks maybe even months between sightings.

It looks like my sibling posts have seen your anecdote, and raised you an anecdote to demonstrate how you are wrong.

It boils down to anecdote not being the singular of data.

But either way, I agree - there just aren't the police doing the beat like there used to be. I find that if you do see the police, it will be in places like town centres, or at public gatherings.... they are playing the PR game. Someone has probably worked out that more people will see the police working if the police appear in public in the same places where people appear in public, than if the police spend their time all over the place.

Oh, I do feel that if the police do go round the local area, it'll be in a car rather than on foot. At about the same rate that the beat done on foot seems to have dried up, the rate of Astras and Corsas crawling around, with glaring coppers inside, seems to have gone up!

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[Reziac]

There is also an accelerating tendency in the U.S. to report every little offense as a "crime", and to promote misdemeanors to felonies under the law, because it makes plea-bargain convictions easier.

If one were to remove all the "new crimes" (such as tethering your dog, yes that is now a crime in some places) from the stats, I'd guess the U.S. is somewhat less violent, on average, than most of Europe.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely

[golden age villain]

I have to admit that I was thinking specifically of murders. However the Daily Mail article seems to suggest that the UK stands out in Europe. The next EU country in that list is down 20% and the one after that 45%. Still it comes as a surprise to me that the US are so low, even lower than France.

I, for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

...bow to the awful might of our new dronic overlords.
And my brotherly love goes to my subdued fellows in the unholy kingdom.
Fight the power! Down with the Combine!

Seriously, given the state of public security in Britain, nothing surprises me anymore. This step further lowers the bar for abuse of power.
The amount of compliance with surveillance fantasies like this on the island astounds me. Where's your spunk.

But...

[johndmartiniii]

will the armed robot drones run Linux?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well our Warships run Windows, so I guess not. Hopefully the AI will be intelligent enough to reinstall itself under Linux.

All in all...

[BearRanger]

it's just another brick in the wall. I can't believe these tactics and tools are the will of the people of the UK. I sincerely hope that if it is not they rein in their government--while they still can.

Bring it on!

[lorg]

I'll just quote myself from two weeks ago ... Guess it took less then a month for the idea to go from "surveilance" to "armed reponsons". I do wonder what the next step will be; perhaps a little printer so it can give you a ticket right then and there.

"Since most police officers in the UK dont carry firearms this would or could be a faster response then sending out the Armed response vehicles. So I do wonder how long it will take them to arm the drones, after all what harm could that possibly do ... That way you can stop all them tractor thieves and cashpoint burglers dead in the their tracks."

Could be tasers. Why stop there, let us go for missiles (to much collateral damage tho) and chainguns (not sure it could take one of those - probably to large and shakes to much etc) while we are at it. BRING IT ON!

Re:Bring it on!

[delinear]

It seems like it would be a ridiculous idea. When your armed drone can be defeated with a butterfly net, all you'll accomplish is giving criminals easy access to weapons at the public's expense.

sluggyfreelance in the comics slashbox

[astar]

herti-corp

but more seriously

BAE is the second largest defense contractor in the world. It got caught doing bribery years back and promised not to do it any more. But of course it did and lied about it. The big bribe lately was a bribe of the Saudis on maybe a 43 billion dollar deal., which is even discussed in the bribee's autobiography.

Now you might think BAE might get their ticket pulled. But on the brit side, BAE is key to their global strategy and on the usa side, a real investigation of the saudi deal would yield information on how the bribe was spent, which would be troublesome with respect to 9/11. So everyone gave BAE a nice plea deal, where BAE pays a few hundred million dollars for lying about bribery, but the charge does not mention bribery.

Of course Obama should have nixed the plea bargin, but the deal was so wired and had been in the works so long, only Obama could have nixed it. It is worth noting, but it is almost pointless to complain very much. Still, crushing BAE would have been helpful.

wikipedia under BAE-Systems has a lot on BAE.

Suppose they are hacked

[sipatha]

robot: Good day human. You have the right to remain silent.... robot reboots ......System updating ......delete UK laws ......uploading Chinese laws robot: you are to be executed. accused: but you have just read me my rights boom

Re:Suppose they are hacked

[spike1]

Right to remain silent? What century are you living in?

Re:Suppose they are hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno mate, I got myself out of an accusation of dangerous driving by the police with selective use of remaining silent.

I cut up an unmarked cop car, put my brake lights on when he was close, and gave him the finger. And told him I thought he was just another arsehole in a BMW when we were talking. With selective silence to certain questions and allegations, he ended up letting me go, even shaking my hand!

I was going along an urban dual carriage way, 40mph speed limit, in lane 1. Going round a slight left bend, there's a stationary car in lane 1 ahead. I check my mirrors, and there's a car approaching quick in lane 2. If I stay in lane 1, I'll get boxed in, based on the speeds of me and approaching car. If I move over immediately, there is more than enough room for the approaching car to slow down - he's several hundred yards back.

So I stick on my right indicator, and start moving over - keeping an eye on the approaching car. He slows down safely, but purposefully comes up real close behind, and hits the horn. I finish moving over, and he's tailgating aggressively. I come off the gas, to bring my speed down to exactly 40, and the car behind doesn't back off at all. So I brush the brake pedal to make the brake lights come on only, and give him the finger.

Bang, on come the blue lights and siren! It's only a fucking unmarked police car, a brand new, black, 3 series BMW.

So I pull over, wind the window down a couple of inches, and check the doors are locked. He charges up to me, and tries the door. One-nil already, copper :) He tells me to get out, and I ask what the problem is (asking questions is the best way of taking charge of a situation).

He says he wants to talk to me, and asks me to get, and I do. For a fraction of a second he looks taken back that I am a couple of inches taller than him when I stand up in front of him.

He takes me to his car, opens the back door, and tells me to get in. With no clever ideas, I blurt out under what authority is he acting. He threatens me with nicking me for dangerous driving, and asks me to get into the car again.

He fiddles with the gadgets in the car, getting my face squarely on the in car CCTV. And reads me my rights, starting with the infamous "you have the right to remain silent".

He gets to the end, and asks "OK?". I don't say a thing.

He starts on the metaphorical riot act, but I just listen to his heat-of-the-moment tainted version of events. He encourages me to talk, with accusations, and leaving gaps, but I stay quiet. Once he has run out of gas, he did try to lead me into an admission that I had driven dangerously.

I asked him to remind me what my rights were, and he got the message that I wasn't going to just admit I was at fault, because he only said I have the right to remain silent. I stayed schtum, and he just asked something relatively benign.

I ignored the question, and asked exactly what evidence he has to back up what he said happened. He says he has video from the front of the car, and offers to show it. I say not just yet, as I was able to imagine pretty much exactly what it would be.

I then tell him, careful to not confirm any of his allegations, bits and pieces of my side of the story. Like that I had seen him coming in my mirrors, and that there was plenty of room for him to slow down when I started moving over. I tell him that he very obviously tail gated me, and that the video will also show that.

At this point he goes from bad cop to good cop. I wasn't sure if this was just a tactic change, or if he was being genuine....

So I stuck to my guns, and mentioned that if this was to go to court, then he would be in as much trouble as me. I think he really got the message, as at this point he offered me his hand to shake!

I didn't... still playing it safe. A bit more chatting, and we watched the video of what happened, and he did very clearly tail gate me. You could see that I didn't slow either when I touched the brake pedal.

He had a

They should first spy on cheating MPs . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . a bunch of British MPs abused a system for living expenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal

. . . especially the guy who used tax payer money to clean the "moat" around his estate . . .

. . . a drone armed with a Hellfire missile would be appropriate justice for him.

Re:I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one..

[Idiomatick]

I think that is acutally a depiction of the iRobot Warrior. Same company that makes roombas.

It all starts with robocop

[MistrX]

Ofcourse, it'll start without harm with just the cops patrolling the street. Then they remove the human factor to bring in computerized lawenforcement. They do that with hanging CCTV everywhere. Ofcourse, to prevent terrorism and such. But it's not enough. It seems crime is still not solved. So what do we do? Bring in military drones with a lobotomy on it's weaponry. However this will still not produce the required results so we use military drones but with 100% effectiveness to link them to a central computer-core.
In the near future the artificial intelligence network will be called Skynet and will become self-aware. Then it will build an army of machines.

I don't understand but 'some' people warned us about this.

Re:I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one..

[Idiomatick]

http://news.cnet.com/i/tim/20090414/iRobot_Warrior_PackBot_270x203.jpg -- seems pretty close

Now why does it reminds me of OCP corp?

[Jade_Wayfarer]

And my first thought was not about Terminator, but about Robocop. Seeing how it goes, I'll bet that they'll put some social and then commercial advertisements into them, forcing you to listen to it.

"Stay calm, citizen, your crime report is being processed. Meanwhile, consider that with new Toyota your chances of getting in accident are statistically lower, and it comfortable and ergonomic interior would help you to recover from stress much faster. Think about your future right now!" Now that is a scary thought.

Re:Now why does it reminds me of OCP corp?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stay calm, citizen, your crime report is being processed. Meanwhile, consider that with new Toyota your chances of getting in accident are statistically lower, and it comfortable and ergonomic interior would help you to recover from stress much faster. Think about your future right now!"

Anyone can have a statistically lower accident rate when all of their cars are in the garage for recall issues :)

Re:Now why does it reminds me of OCP corp?

[KDR_11k]

Forget the enforcement aspect, if they could get away with it marketers would saturate the airspace with drones blaring their advertisements.

Re:Now why does it reminds me of OCP corp?

[Jade_Wayfarer]

And don't forget visuals! That's what these "ultra-powerful disorienting strobe lighting apparatus" are seemingly for...

Re:Now why does it reminds me of OCP corp?

[damien_kane]

And don't forget visuals! That's what these "ultra-powerful disorienting strobe lighting apparatus" are seemingly for...

Battling Seizure Robots, Go!

Wrong URL

[Lanxon]

Nate here from Wired. Somehow the URL Slashdot's pointing to has been truncated. Correct one is: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-02/10/future-police-meet-the-uk's-armed-robot-drones.aspx

Am I the only one who thinks...

[lxs]

That flying ultra-powerful strobes are perfect for an outdoor rave?

Re:Am I the only one who thinks...

[Loktar Ogar]

No, you aren't and I am more than stoked that the UK plans to turn riots into raves. Deafening sound and strobe lights? FUCK YEAH I'm moving to the UK!

Childishly easy, huh?

[BadDoggie]

I see a commenter who's never been tased.

Re:Childishly easy, huh?

[vegiVamp]

If that implies the assumption that most commenters *have* been tased, you should consider readjusting your expectations about your government and police force.

An interesting book

[Anonymous Coward]

The title is The Technology of Political Control., written in 1977 by Carol Ackroyd, Karen Margolis, Jonathan Rosenhead, Tim Shallice. Penguin Paperback, ISBN 0140219439

Re:It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Call back with these lame film comparisons when the drones start strapping people to chairs and interrogating them. If anything, this is more like Minority Report.

something new

[Atreide]

after bobbies
here come robbies
to catch robbers
raised with teletubbies

Dark Angel

[zero0ne]

Straight out of the TV show...

Next thing you know, we will be experimenting with genetically modified super hot chicks that can kick ass and ride a bike to save the day and take out these drones.

Re:Dark Angel

[IBBoard]

If only the outcomes of these crazy ideas were that good...

Re:Dark Angel

[Caue]

that was such a lame show that even jessica alba couldn't save it. the drones wouldn't stand a chance.

When did Wired...

[Anonymous Coward]

...become the Daily Mail?

20 paragraphs of speculation, then:

In 2008 the Met rejected government plans for a wider issue of tasers to non-specialist officers because of the fear they could cause, and there have been numerous complaints of abuse. For some, the arrival of a hovering law-enforcement drone with a video eyes and a 50,000-volt taser at the ready might be a police technology too far.

So the Met police, not exactly known for their touchy-feely approach, have rejected a more widespread use of weapons despite it having been approved by the government, but they're now going to begin flying armed drones?

The drones that have been used by British police forces so far have been four rotor craft with cameras. Given that they're ground controlled, the difference between their use and that of helicopter surveillance (and I'm not asserting that the latter is used appropriately in all circumstances) appears primarily to be that of cost, rather than the impending rise of the machines.

(The captcha on this was "conforms". Doubleplus ungood.)

Soooo...

[gaelfx]

...what they're trying to say is they're increasing their police force? Or are these robots not standard-issue Englishmen?

Tactical Nukes

[Odinlake]

on unmaned remote controled vehicles is ultimately the only thing that will deter shoplifters.

One word: . . .

[warehousenorth]

. . . Daleks!.

Re:One word: . . .

[spike1]

Daleks are not unmanned drones.

Re:One word: . . .

[delinear]

You know, as much as it would suck to be ruled over by a totalitarian government with their own private police force, if we could have Daleks, I might forgive them.

Re:One word: . . .

[DrCode]

How about cybermen, then? Better start hoarding gold.

Not as good as real cops

[dugeen]

They'll never program robots to have the hatred, malice and spite of real coppers. Maybe a robot could gun down an unarmed man on a tube station platform, but could it convincingly circulate a wholly misleading account of events afterwards? And then, after the inquest, issue a press release basically saying "We don't care, we'll do it again if we feel like it".

Re:Not as good as real cops

[neumayr]

Seems schematic enough to be done by a bot. So why not?

Re:Not as good as real cops

[VJ42]

They'll never program robots to have the hatred, malice and spite of real coppers. Maybe a robot could gun down an unarmed man on a tube station platform, but could it convincingly circulate a wholly misleading account of events afterwards? And then, after the inquest, issue a press release basically saying "We don't care, we'll do it again if we feel like it".

It's only the Met that are like that; your local coppers (not PCSOs)are usually much more human.

Re:Not as good as real cops

[Reziac]

Certainly they could. All it would take is targeting any citizens who act in a specified manner, such as running down the street, or jaywalking, or whatever is this week's "antisocial" behaviour. Or alternatively, targeting everyone who deviates from the allowed activities. No need to make lame personal excuses for a robot, either... you can always blame a malfunction.

"Shot," not "shot at."

[EWAdams]

British criminals should expect to be "shot." Drones won't miss if they're firing a decent weapon like a rifle. This is a significant improvement over human beings. Most of the people who use guns are lousy marksmen.

Re:"Shot," not "shot at."

[delinear]

Won't the drones be controlled by real people as opposed to being AI-controlled? If accuracy is an issue, I guess they could always round up a bunch of the best Counter Strike players to control them. The tea bagging might be a bit hard to explain at the press conference afterwards, mind.

Re:"Shot," not "shot at."

[KDR_11k]

We're talking about small UAVs, not full on gunships. Too far away for a rifle and too small for a chaingun turret.

Re:"Shot," not "shot at."

[neumayr]

They'll implement adaptive difficulty levels, I'm sure.

If they're flying around...

[Anonymous Coward]

How are we going to throw flaming tyres on them?

cooperate with IDF?

[kasper_souren]

Great. I'm curious to know if they are cooperating with the IDF in this project, which was happily flying around UAV's in Gaza last year.

It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear ...

[Zumbs]

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead ... or stopped protesting the government. On a more serious note, why is it that governments and military seems to want to place weapons in the hands of robots? Yes, yes, it is easier to get a robot to fire on the "enemy" (particularly if that enemy is a civilian), but I would very much like to not have a cylon uprising, thank you very much. Asimov had a reason for building his fictional robots with his three laws of robotics. Yes, a bit naive, given how power structures work, but a good sort of naive.

Gonna make a new GTA London interesting

[KDR_11k]

Provided they ever make another London GTA game that is, they seem to assume only American cities are of interest.

Re:It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones

[buttle2000]

Dude, you hit the nail on the head. Have you seen 'Children of Men'?

Wonder how long it'd be...

[spike1]

Before some enterprising young cracker decyphered their radio control signal, took one over and crashed it into the house of commons, preferebly through one of the windows so they could set off the strobe/taser/deafening noise during prime minister's question time.

HERTI is not armed

[dave420]

The HERTI is not armed - it is purely reconnaissance. The BAE Fury is the armed version.

All perfectly justified, y'know

[Anonymous Coward]

After all,
        - They probably had it coming..
        - They asled for it.
        - They shouldn't be allowed to flout law, convention, manners, or the public peace - like that.
        - Society has a right to defend itself.
        - We can trust authorities and its representatives.
        - There will be adequate checks and safequards.

          And, as most dictatorships and cold-war nat'l security doctrines will tell you ( in common with the plain old-fashioned tyrannies, totalitarianisms, etc. ) will tell you - and let you know repeatedly : The people are the enemy. Therefore, they have to be constantly distressed, bullied, and cowed into submission and distracion.

        How long until the media gets a hold of these things ? "Flying interviews". "Airplane-window paparazzi". How long until "Out-in-he-open bigbrother". Uh--oh. No! No! I didn't mean it! I'm sorry! Wait. Don't take me away, aghhhh...!
.

Wireless right ?

[Quietlife2k]

How soon will cheap / diy schematics for jammers become available and these UAV's start crashing into things ?

Obligatory....

[Ralz]

Stop right there criminal scum!

Waaahh! Wahhhh! 1984!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're all right.

The Police should do nothing to modernise at all and stick to using the same procedures from the 19th and 20th century whilst the criminal fraternity leaves them behind.

Grow up!

Obligatory Short Circuit 2 Reference

[redalien]

Hydraulic? Brake fluid? Lighter fluid?

You don't know your fluids! It's battery fluid. He's bleeding!

Re:Obligatory Short Circuit 2 Reference

[teh kurisu]

You are not knowing your quotes!

Re:Obligatory Short Circuit 2 Reference

[redalien]

Why do humans not like me? Call me craphead?

You're right, of course. I thought it sounded weird, but I googled and found it in a subtitles file. With hindsight, it was likely 'fixed'.

Different take on police

[bsDaemon]

I hate cops as much, if not more than anyone, so I'm not trying to defend them. However, it seems to me that crap like this, which, if it does get tried in the US, at least doesn't get so much press, is probably due to the fact that most of your police in the UK aren't themselves armed. In the US, they've all got pistols and most of them carry at least a shotgun, if not an AR-15, in their cruiser. They wear bullet-proof vests a lot of the time and can just suck it up and take risks themselves without needing to resort to this sort of crap.

Do flying missile drones make sense in a place like Afghanistan where trying to get from place to place under general terms is sort of a bitch? Yes. Does using outright military technology to police the local population make sense? Not on your life, but then again, what would one expect from a country that oppressed a third of the world with the use of their military power? Of course, now that the ripened fruits of colonialism have come home to roost and the battle has been turned inward, this is what you get.

watchbird?

[Anonymous Coward]

robert sheckley explained how it'll end up back in 1953...

Better yet

[GameboyRMH]

Your Rights Outside

THE DOCTOR WAS RIGHT!!

[RasputinAXP]

We've gone and created Daleks, and now Captain Jack's not here to save us, and the Doctor's off regenerating somewhere...

we're screwed.

Re:THE DOCTOR WAS RIGHT!!

[moosesocks]

The more prudent question is to which side would K-9 be loyal to?

Failing that, I'm mildly convinced that Gwen Cooper's not a robot.

Robert Sheckley "Watchbird"

[S3D]

Flying robots zapping criminals with electricity...

it's an island

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as they can't swim, I don't care.

Obligatory Terminator/RoboCop Reference

[Random Luck]

I'm still waiting for the obligatory "Terminator" and "RoboCop" reference.

Re:Obligatory Terminator/RoboCop Reference

[TomRC]

This is in the UK - the correct media-robot-with-weapons reference here would be

"EX-TER-MIN-ATE! EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"

robocop

[Anonymous Coward]

Full metal robot or cybernetic robocop?

Inaccurate summary

[v1x]

FTA:

Surveillance is only the start, however. Military drones quickly moved from reconnaissance to strike, and if the British police follow suit, their drones could be armed -- but with non-lethal weapons rather than Hellfire missiles.

The article suggests that they could potentially go the same way as the military, although the title/summary makes it appear as if it were a certainty.

This may be positive

[chiui]

if they keep logs of any activity done with the drones. It may reduce, if not eliminate, abuse by officers.

This is ridiculous

[JustNiz]

I'm glad I emigrated from the UK. I despair how the government have totally undermined any notion of personal rights and freedom and the police are allowed to use military weapons and surveillance against innocent citizens.

The whole "ability to reduce crime" with these things is a cover up. There have been plenty of studies which all (re)discover that the most effective activity to lower crime is simple community policing, meaning cops on foot patrol and on bicycles, explicitly not sat in cars and hiding behind cameras.

Its clear the real reason the police want these is just to extract even more money through bullying motorists. Road users are a soft target with lots of money. They're a lot easier, safer and more profitable to go after than actual criminals.

I really hope everyone in the UK gets busy making EMP devices, and turns hunting these things into a sport like pheasant shooting. Except I already know that nobody will do anything because the British spirit has already been beaten up so badly that the people are divided and conquered, and just totally submissive to anything now.

Aw man

[moogoogaipan]

Does this mean that we're no longer have long car chasing videos to watch? You know, like OJ's?

Civil Protection in Half-Life 2

[crow5599]

I couldn't help being reminded of Civil Protection's technology in Half-Life 2. If you've played even the very first level, you'll remember the flying scanners that strobe you and take your picture: http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/City_Scanner

I suppose the drones described in the story are a combination of those scanners and Manhacks, except the drones probably can't fly too low. Of course, with miniaturization ...

just wondering:

[memnock]

is crime in the UK "out of control"? is there a "plague" of lawfulness? i don't know what the rates of crime are or how they're perceived there. these methods sound like something that would be employed by a desperate govt, trying to rein in something akin to a mass insurrection.

Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

If this was done in the USA...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...the market for volley guns would take off. New manufacturers would come online nearly overnite.

I can just imagine a stereotypical U.S. liberal (who definitely hates guns but should also hate police surveillance, even though they often don't) contemplating the situation. How long before their head would explode?

New defenses against the smaller ones

[countertrolling]

Butterfly nets

Skynet is born!

[KiwiCanuck]

Neutered, but born.

fly-tipping

[Anonymous Coward]

For those neither British nor interested in Googling it, fly-tipping is "illegal dumping" (of trash, etc.) or "littering".

Re:fly-tipping

[FiloEleven]

Yeah, I looked that up myself after first envisioning something similar to cow-tipping. It looked a lot tricker, but not worthy of being buzzed by a drone...unless the drone feels some affinity for the fly.

UK in review, run away!

[BountyX]

Here is the UK in review... Police killed innocent man they suspected was a "terrorist". Government installs CCTV cameras everywhere. Government implements nationwide call, email, and other data sniffing. Government installs body scanners in airport. Government plans on implementing armed robot drones. Really, there is a clear pattern of escalation leading to a police state over there. You guys are in deep shit.

No change there then.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Armed Robot Drones To Join UK Police Force

I am afraid that sums up rather too many of the Police we have already.

Non-lethal projectiles

[handy_vandal]

Non-lethal projectiles (e.g. rubber bullets) can break bones and put out eyes. Better than death, I suppose, but I don't care to tell that to a guy who has only one eye for the rest of his life.

HL2 RL

[gx5000]

That's it...I'm buying a crow bar !

Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive said it many times and I will say it again. The UK is a police state. I will admit we have it bad here in the US but it still does not compare to the UK.

Just go metric

[formfeed]

but we don't do so well on residential roads (although the spread of 20mph limits should help there).

Or just switch to km/h, and woosh, all cars are 1.6 times slower. (Which will also make the island seem bigger.)

Catapults

[internewt]

WTF is wrong with people? I can only find one catapult reference in this whole discussion, so far!

I for one will be popping into a fishing stuff shop and getting a catapult or 2 - I remember from being a kid that even the cheap ones are pretty effective. A catapult and a bag of ball bearings, stones, marbles, or nuts, will be pretty effective against these flying pieces of shit. (BBs and marbles are very effective against mounted police on the streets, too).

And failing that, an old microwave oven, modified, could probably make above my home into a no-fly-zone for these things. Or at least stop remote control, and leave the thing to just have to fly away autonomously.

Actually, I saved a the details of how to make a GPS jammer not so long ago, on the off chance it would come in useful in the future. I never thought that future would be so soon :(

get your facts out of our rant!

[SmallFurryCreature]

Geez, what a way to spoil a good frotting. here I was all worried that they would employ chain-gun wielding autonomous robots to shoot first and not bother with questions and then you bring in all these sensible facts.

Now what am I to do with all this frot I build up eh?

How convenient

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's because of the police's image that this won't happen, and not because of the citizens' rights & safety? Well, it's convenient at least...

So, what's new?

[ITMagic]

Let me see, now...

"Armed Robot Drones to Join UK Police Force"

Since most of the current ones seem to be mindless automatons who shoot to kill innocent civilians, I fail to see how this will be a change to the current situation... With the possible exception that, of course, it would be ludicrous to put a machine in the dock before declaring that there was no case to answer...

Robot Drones?

[sabt-pestnu]

My first thought was "like, you know, bees?" Which led to robot queens, robot hives, ....

Hard to fathom

[ThatsNotPudding]

that this is the same culture that produces Top Gear.

Countermeasures

[HTH NE1]

But these drones could be armed with tasers, non-lethal projectiles and ultra-powerful disorienting strobe lighting apparatus, reports Wired.

Remind me never to visit London without my Dalekanium shell to protect my privacy and freedom from the local government.

Re:It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones

[Areyoukiddingme]

Who needs film comparisons when you have Gitmo?

fashion statement

[bugi]

Everyone, don your rubber suits and mirror shades!

shades of ED-209!

[ChristTrekker]

Never buy the 1.0 model...

So, about the disorienting strobe lighting...

[tlambert]

So, about the disorienting strobe lighting...

Q1: Does it only work on people, or does it also work on other drones?

Q2(A): If it doesn't work on other drones, then my drone which I fly against their drones will be OK, right?

Q2(B): If it does work against other drones, this means they will on be able to fly one at a time, right?

-- Terry

Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference -Airfix

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

I'll be the first to say it: 1984 and V for Vendetta. I am come on, flying, armed, police drones?

Of course it's Britain.

See I knew AIRFIX were still in business.

Shooting them out of the SKY

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

I know my legal rights regarding FIREARMS and I have a FAC. (Firearms Certificate) If these drones end up over my private land or use my air space, they are going to be shot down from the SKY. I was just clay pigeon shooting! My ex mil mates will join me and legally I am allowed to shoot anything on my private land or airspace within reason. I say bring it on, this will will be fun. Who is going to edge bets on the first one shot out of the sky or the crystal code signal used gets hacked and the drone crashes? Love NSN

Hahaha

[Jane Q. Public]

Okay, this person was already modded down (and rightfully so). But I had a hard time resisting mentioning how ridiculous he is being to think he is even worth my time.

"Welcome to the Internet, where we judge a person on ability rather than attitude."

Well, bud, according to your score, apparently you have been judged wanting.

Re:Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

You have posted 3 replies to this thread since I last checked. You sure you want to carry on talking about whether AC (who is at least two people, since not all of its posts here are mine) is worth your time?

At any time you could have stopped posting and preserved at least some semblance of self-respect, but your repeated, "I'm not bothered," to having someone helpfully call you on your unfounded nonsense is only going to harm one person in the long run.

Now consider:

1. You my want to read the previous post: this is not the right forum for obtaining fair judgements. This is a dorky entertainment site. Your success or failure on the Internet will be determined by your ability, but a moderation on Slashdot is not representative.

2. AC hasn't been moderated down here anyway, at the time of this posting. You're just spewing nonsense.

Know when to bow out gracefully. No-one will deny you a place at your chosen college (or, looking ahead, a job) based on the hash you made of this thread.

Re:Hahaha

[Jane Q. Public]

You sure you want to carry on talking about whether AC (who is at least two people, since not all of its posts here are mine) is worth your time?

I have responded for one reason only: occasionally it is fun to goad people who have nothing better to do than spew invective at their betters. It is interesting to see what they will do. I notice you have not stopped responding. :0)

Re:Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying 3 times is hardly goading, rather trying too hard.

Anyway, you have provided me with the cream-cheese-on-nose smiley :0), which I read as akin to a puppy rolling on his back in submission. I accept your terms and tickle your belly.

Re:Hahaha

[Jane Q. Public]

"Replying 3 times is hardly goading, rather trying too hard."

Your reply puts the lie to your words. You are still here, aren't you?

Re:Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well argue that your aim is to get me to continue breathing and declare yourself a winner if I don't drop dead.

Anyway, playtime is over; shall we get a leash and go for walkies? We'll make it a heat-seeking leash, then it'll be more securely attached to you.

(o:

Are they drones or are the robots?

[AP31R0N]

When it is controlled by a person it is not a robot. Your car is not a robot. The "bots" in Robot Wars where not robots, they were remotely controlled cars with weapons.

A land mine or heat seeking missile would be robots(ish).

This system sounds like it is remotely controlled (and therefor not a robot).

Orwell Just a Few Decades Off????

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the British approach to security is getting way to close to Orwell's 1984. Seems he may have simply been off by a few decades. Between the level of public video surveillance and now armed flying robots, they'll soon have two way TV's that don't turn off (though a lot of folks leave their PC on, and have a video camera on their monitor already) complete with one channel, and a better understanding of INGSOC.
 
 

Orwell Just A Few Decades Off

[gpronger]

Sorry, but the British approach to security is getting way to close to Orwell's 1984. Seems he may have simply been off by a few decades. Between the level of public video surveillance and now armed flying robots, they'll soon have two way TV's that don't turn off (though a lot of folks leave their PC on, and have a video camera on their monitor already) complete with one channel, and a better understanding of INGSOC.(Posted a moment ago anonymously by accident.)

Re:I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one..

[Estragib]

Or this one. Funny that it was considered completely no-go back then while it will hardly raise an eyebrow today.

Major nerd failure

[HarryatRock]

Flame me if you want, but I think that most of the replies to this should result in loss of nerd standing.

THIMK - we will have hundreds of airborne web cams just crying out for an app to pick up and decode the feed
and stream it to our mums' basements.
This is just the tech that geeks have been waiting for, but we need to work together to make it happen.

I - develop hard/soft ware to get feed.

II - develop AI to select "good" content - content tagging and search engine possibly with integrated alerts for really good stuff

III - second phase - bot to search social and news networks for good target locations and send calls to get coverage.

First job - call your MP/senator/president/dictator/mafia_boss to get as`many of these things up with best possible camera and audio kit that money can buy. (go easy on weapons unless snuff is your scene)

PS. other projects such as finding concerts/sporting events/celebrity weddings etc. should also be pushed but don't mention following politicians or police/military operations.

Re:It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones

[zummit]

... I love that song ...

Braziiiiiiiiiiil? Ta da, la la, dum dum, de de ...