Armed Robot Drones To Join UK Police Force

Obligatory 1984 Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 19:31 · Score: 0, Insightful

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 by delinear · 2010-02-10 20:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-02-10 22:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

"... 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 by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-02-10 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference by xaxa · 2010-02-10 22:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

"... 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 by Nathrael · 2010-02-10 23:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-02-11 00:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2010-02-11 00:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
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.
--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference by xaxa · 2010-02-11 00:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Hurrah! by zmollusc · 2010-02-10 19:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.

It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones... by VendettaMF · 2010-02-10 19:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dammit you guys...

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

--
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.

Re:Idiots on parade by cgenman · 2010-02-10 20:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
The ______ Agenda

Re:Idiots on parade by zmollusc · 2010-02-10 20:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

--
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely by VShael · 2010-02-10 21:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by delinear · 2010-02-10 21:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 21:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

When did Wired... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 21:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

...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.)

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely by Rogerborg · 2010-02-10 22:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Not as good as real cops by dugeen · 2010-02-10 22:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Idiots on parade by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-02-10 23:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

These days? Yeah, pretty much.

Re:Timeline by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-11 01:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

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

gort 2.0

Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-11 02:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Armed Robot Drones To Join UK Police Force

22 of 311 comments (clear)