Police Use James-Bond-Style GPS Bullet

mrspoonsi writes "The BBC reports that police in the U.S. are now using 'GPS bullets,' a device they can shoot at fleeing vehicles in order to track them. They're designed to make high-speed chases safer. The pursuing police car presses a button, a lid pops open, and a GPS bullet is fired which becomes attached to the fleeing car. The car can then be tracked from a distance in real-time without the need for a high-speed pursuit."

Comments

What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and 'first!'

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Cryacin]

Well, we might find Scorpio's lair finally!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[flyneye]

Not likely, very few U.S. cops would be ABLE to utilize these and probably WON'T.
1. Cops have a hard time expending the expense of regular ammo and complain of shortages.
2. Having a bullet ready for GPS duty at all times means having a spare pistol on your belt. What, did you think it went in with the others? You gonna shoot all your other ammo till you reach the GPS bullet?
3. $500, get the fuck outa here. Nobody cares that much except the BBC who suckered you all into looking at ads over their vaporware story anyway.
4. This won't go to cops, FBI and other government sh*tsticks will be issued them in large amounts, because, the people paid for them, the administration O.K.ed them, then Congress funds it. Just like all the other crap. State and local cops get whatever the "state' or county pays for, keep on wishin'.
5. This is a bad idea, watch it die.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[somersault]

It seems you've skimmed the article, but not actually noticed an important point that was even mentioned in the summary:

The pursuing police car presses a button, a lid pops open, and a GPS bullet is fired which becomes attached to the fleeing car

I think since it could potentially save a lot of money on damages to public roads, cars, buildings, etc, that it probably would be used. It could even be funded by local insurance companies.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[cayenne8]

Yes, but a good criminal would push his Speed Racer like button, and envelope the car in some type of Faraday Mesh rending the GPS bullet useless.

BWhahahahahaa....

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not likely, very few U.S. cops would be ABLE to utilize these and probably WON'T. 1. Cops have a hard time expending the expense of regular ammo and complain of shortages. 2. Having a bullet ready for GPS duty at all times means having a spare pistol on your belt. What, did you think it went in with the others? You gonna shoot all your other ammo till you reach the GPS bullet? 3. $500, get the fuck outa here. Nobody cares that much except the BBC who suckered you all into looking at ads over their vaporware story anyway. 4. This won't go to cops, FBI and other government sh*tsticks will be issued them in large amounts, because, the people paid for them, the administration O.K.ed them, then Congress funds it. Just like all the other crap. State and local cops get whatever the "state' or county pays for, keep on wishin'. 5. This is a bad idea, watch it die.

Guess how I know you didn't RTFA.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[DrXym]

1. This is meaningless since it will be separate device

2. It is a bullet that is put in a hand gun. It will be a separate device which could be mounted on the pursuing cop car.

3. $500 is chicken feed compared to the damage, potential loss of life, insurance liability etc. of a high speed pursuit. Cops don't have to maintain constant visual contact to see where the vehicle is going. Consequently they can drop back, lessen the tension of the pursuit, plan to intercept the vehicle with stingers etc and bring the thing to a safer and faster conclusion.

4. It'll go to those departments which see merit in carrying it. Presumably the FBI have far more covert means of tracking the car than chasing after it and firing something at it which splats on the back of the car.

5. Read the article.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Runaway1956]

The thing that no one has mentioned yet, is that cops aren't going to "back off" at all. Each and every cop in the chase is racing for his "opportunity" to make a high profile bust. So - Joe Rookie manages to plant a GPS bullet on or into a suspect's car, and slows down a little. Sergeant Badass is going to come whizzing past Joe, so that he can get the "collar" in his record, and listen to the cheers from his comrades at the local cop bar. Screw that GPS sucker - from Badass' point of view, it looked like a miss anyway.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[beelsebob]

3. $500, get the fuck outa here. Nobody cares that much except the BBC who suckered you all into looking at ads over their vaporware story anyway.

This is the key though. A police pursuit is expensive –really expensive. First, you're likely to involve at least 5 vehicles (if not directly in the pursuit, then trying to close the driver down into a net), that means 10 drivers being paid, 5 engines burning a lot of fuel. Then you're likely to call in the helicopter, because otherwise the chance of losing them is very high. The chances that one of the cops hits something during the pursuit are increased, increasing the chance of damage to a police vehicle. Add to that the the fleeing driver may deliberately hit the police car, causing significant damage. All this added up together likely means that it costs more than $500 to run a pursuit. Thus, this could well be a cost saving.

This also addresses points 1 and 4 (which were actually 3 in disguise). Point 2 is just plain wrong. Point 5 isn't a point.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[beelsebob]

Self reply, but I missed a few costs:

The cost of insuring the police to do this (which has *huge* legal liability attached to it).
  The cost of sending cops to the scene when the fleeing driver inevitably hits something.
  The cost of sending cops to the scene, and to people's houses to tell them a loved one is dead, when the fleeing driver inevitably hits some *one*.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[beelsebob]

Maybe the US cops have a different attitude (I doubt it, really), but in the UK, the police receive exactly this training (to back off from a pursuit when they can), and regularly do so. There, when a pursuit starts, the driver's co-driver needs to confirm to control that the driver is trained as a pursuit driver, and is driving a suitable vehicle. They then relay the content of the pursuit, and the conditions of it back to control so that they can make a decision about whether it's safe to continue it or not (and whether it's sufficiently in the public interest to risk killing pedestrians etc, vs catching someone). It's common for them then to call in the police helicopter. Once that happens, and the helicopter is overhead, they back away from the chase, so that it slows down and becomes less dangerous. The helicopter tracks the car until the occupants bail, and the cops are generally sufficiently close that they go and bag them.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Runaway1956]

Here, in the US, the police helicopter is called in, as often as possible. But, that doesn't end the ground chase at all - the chopper just witnesses the ground chase, and if the occupants bail, help to direct ground forces to the suspects.

The ONLY times I've seen a ground unit break off pursuit, is when he has been left in the dust so badly, that he can't even pretend to be chasing any longer.

Before anyone asks - that generally happens when some damn fool on a motorcycle comes flashing by at speeds over 150. Not that I would ever think about committing such a heinous crime, LMAO!!

Parenthetically, I often wondered what it SOUNDED like when a bike blasted past. Found out one late night in Chicago, when several dozen bikes passed me, well over 150 mph. Then, several more at slightly more sane speeds like 120 or so, then a couple hundred running merely 100 mph or so. My own speed at the time, was 85, and those first bikes blasting past startled the hell out of me!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[DrXym]

Back off doesn't mean let the guy get away and your scenario sounds pretty ludicrous.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Runaway1956]

Which scenario is ludicrous? Screaming past a cop on a motorcycle, at speeds that he can't hope to match?

There are many videos on Youtube that are clearly bogus. There are more that are less clearly bogus. But, if you browse through the selections, you will see that it happens often enough. The Hayabusa is supposed to be the fastest production bike in the world today, and there are many videos of people trying to prove that idea. There was a day when I rode a machine good for about 185 mph, and at that time, there weren't ANY cop cars that could go that fast. Fact is, today's bikes are even faster, but the cop cars haven't kept pace.

Sadly - outrunning the cop car doesn't end the story. Dashcams that capture your license plate number ensure that they WILL catch up to you, sometime.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Here, in the US, the police helicopter is called in, as often as possible. But, that doesn't end the ground chase at all - the chopper just witnesses the ground chase, and if the occupants bail, help to direct ground forces to the suspects.

That was my thought. What if the guys bail when the ground vehicles lose sight.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[gl4ss]

that's not the real reason why none of the cops will back down. they wont back down until they have at least a chopper.

because the suspect might(will) flee the car.

it's just a backup in the case they actually manage to lose the cops, but they wont drop visual for this.. at least the yank cops which so many remind "only ever shoot to kill because that's smart".

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Runaway1956]

Wait, wait, wait. You seem to be conflating multiple issues here.

First - if you're going to shoot, hell yes, you shoot to kill.

Second - our cops are to quick to shoot in many instances. But, still, if you're going to shoot, you shoot to kill.

Third - the chase - the original subject being discussed - doesn't require that the cop cars remain in close proximity, or even that they maintain visual contact. It isn't even necessary or desirable that the cops always "win" the chase. A 90 mph chase on downtown streets is criminal negligence on the part of the cops. You just don't to it. So what if a criminal gets away? It's not like he is suddenly going to disappear from the face of the earth, never to be heard from again. He'll be back, in some time and place where he can't flee. Let him win, this time. He only wins a round, he doesn't win the game.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[gsslay]

Why is this nonsense modded insightful? This idiot clearly didn't RTFA.

1. Go look up the meaning of "expending". It's not whatever the hell you think it is.
2. The bullet is not fired by a gun on the cop's person, or from their gun.
3. It's the BBC. They have no ads.
4. It is already in use by cops.
5. You're an idiot.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. This is meaningless since it will be separate device

Your statement (quoted above,) is also meaningless, since you didn't quote what you're replying to. Or, are people meant to scroll up and down to make sense of your reply, or to memorize the parent's post in order to interpret yours?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[amRadioHed]

Yeah, that and every other fact about the article which he got entirely wrong.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be missing the point of the argument against this "gps bullet". It is a waste of money to develop. Knowing where the car is without having visual confirmation of it is entirely useless. The criminal doesn't give a rats ass about the car. The only people who commit crimes and drive away in their own car are idiots that wouldn't be able to evade the cops in a real high speed chase to begin with. This technology seems specifically designed to allow the criminals to escape because it only becomes useful when it is the only way to identify the location of the car. At which point, the drivers will have already bailed.

So what if a criminal gets away?

Yeah, who cares if that murder suspect gets away and is able to kill yet another person. That's not a big deal, right?

Let him win, this time. He only wins a round, he doesn't win the game.

It's not a game. Thinking it's a game is how the dumbasses came up with this stupid idea in the first place. And it's why corruption is so easy to find.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars should all be equipped with kill switches that the cops can use. People seem to forget the driving is not a right, it's just a privilege. You want a street legal car? Then it needs a kill switch.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Cederic]

if you're going to shoot, you shoot to kill.

Given the hit rates of American police personnel using firearms, aiming to fucking hit would be a great start.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[dcw3]

And, you're not going to outrun the cops radio no matter how fast your crotch-rocket is.

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

[Mabhatter]

It gives something for RoboCop's Drone buddies to target lock on. Cops just roll back and a missile strike ends it. Go summary execution style!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[flyneye]

Nope didn't read it at first and still didn't fall far from the truth. But since you're the first pedantic scrub to step up to the plate, I'll slap you around a while.

1
expend (k-spnd)
tr.v. expended, expending, expends
1. To lay out; spend: expending tax revenues on government operations. See Synonyms at spend.

Well, well, public school grad huh, I bet you were looking for the skateboard forum elsewhere.

2.Doesn't matter much where they fire it from. If it is fired from the Batmobile then the officer didn't clear target and runs the risk of shooting the suspect in a fast moving projectile, possibly in a neighborhood, possibly a house, a pedestrian or your stupid ass.

3.Its the BBC, they have an Allstate Insurance ad in your face at the top and sidebar BEFORE they load anything of value. Please don't post from your not-so-smart-phones browser in the future, dickhead.

4. It's already been bought by cops who will fumble around with it til they hurt themselves or someone else. Then will come the lawsuits, then this will go away like electric underwear.

5. Apparently, you wish you could be an idiot, because an idiot just served you , bitch.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Runaway1956]

Both yes, and no. Bikes have eluded the police almost since there were bikes. Just because the cops have great communications, doesn't mean they have great coordination. It grows less and less likely as time goes on, and technology improves, but bikes still elude the police.

But, I already mentioned dashcams, and license plates.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[foobar bazbot]

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but

This technology ... only becomes useful when it is the only way to identify the location of the car. At which point, the drivers will have already bailed.

implies that you believe criminals will routinely either (1) decelerate to a complete stop physics-defyingly fast when out of sight of police or (2) bail out of a moving car.

In reality, it's possible for a pursuing vehicle to maintain a close enough distance to be able to move in when the GPS tracker indicates the fleeing vehicle is slowing, in order to apprehend anyone exiting it, but not staying close enough to avoid the risk of breaking visual contact long enough for the fleeing vehicle to escape (e.g. an intersection after a blind curve, where a single pursuing unit has 50% or less chance of correctly guessing which route the fleeing vehicle took). In this case, the GPS is useful, both to tell when you need to catch back up, and to prevent them from escaping.

Now noting that there is some use for this isn't the same as saying it's worth the expense (both hardware costs and developing procedures and policies for its use), and the present high-speed chase behavior of several local police agencies in my state makes it obvious to me that they absolutely should not have any new toys to distract them, but it's not as dumb a concept as you claim.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[hairyfish]

The thing that no one has mentioned yet, is that cops aren't going to "back off" at all. Each and every cop in the chase is racing for his "opportunity" to make a high profile bust.

At least that's your interpretation of how police act based on TV shows right? Here in Australia we have a whole bunch of rules and policies based around how police can engage in pursuits and under what circumstances they must disengage. Police vehicles and cameras, tracking and logging that enforce these rules and anyone caught breaking the rules finds themselves on desk duty pretty quick. So the reason no-one has mentioned it, is because it is the stuff of fantasy and third-world police departments. Those of us in the civilised world look forward to this technology saving money, and more importantly saving lives.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Runaway1956]

"At least that's your interpretation of how police act based on TV shows right?"

Errrr, no. I don't base anything on Hollyweird's strange entertainment. I have a sister who retired from the Pennsylvania State Police. I've worked with other people who have been cops. I've personally witnessed a number of "incidents" in real life. Please note - I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN A COP. I've only been close to some cops.

You simply don't find very many cops who are willing to back down from any potential confrontation.

"Here in Australia we have a whole bunch of rules and policies based around how police can engage in pursuits and under what circumstances they must disengage."

Several years ago, we had something of movement to do something like that. After some high profile police chases in which innocents were killed, the thing started to get off the ground. This was before I ever became a father, so more than 25 years ago. The whole thing just kinda fizzled out. Today, here in the states, cops do NOT just disengage. It doesn't happen. Not out in the boonies, and not downtown anywhere. Standard procedure is to call for backup, then call for a helicopter, then call for more backup, then call for yet more backup. Cops do NOT just back off.

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes put a kill switch in so I can go buy a black market car and kill the dealers buisness. Not to mention all the hackers and the cars in entire cities shutting down at once. Great Idea, really

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for those view who are that good :)

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[gsslay]

1. So what does "spending the expense of regular ammo" mean?? Cops have a hard time spending money? Are they misers? Did you actually mean to write "afford the expense of regular ammo"?

2. It matters that you started out wittering on about the cop firing it from their gun. Thus demonstrating you did not RTFA. Changing that to wittering about the batmobile won't change that.

3. It's the BBC, UK related news, paid by UK TV licence holders, for UK TV licence holders. If you are in the UK there are no adverts. So the BBC are not motivated by attracting UK readers of UK news to adverts. If you are seeing adverts then, what the hey, you're getting a world class news service paid for by UK TV licence holders for free. You're welcome.

4. Which changes nothing about you originally saying "This won't go to cops" because you did not RTFA.

5. Keep squirming, the fact remains you did not RTFA but felt arrogant enough to pile in with your totally uninformed scorn. The mark of a real idiot is he doesn't know when he knows nothing.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[flyneye]

WHup ! Nup, nup , nope, talk to the hand .
Still right, still got the goods on cops.Still got ads no matter how much you backpaddle. Still made my point before AND after reading.Still got you as my bitch.
Gonna put it in and make you squirm like the bad data slut you are.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[RockDoctor]

The "good" (in the sense of "competent") criminal stole his car a few hours before the task he was planning to use it in, from Mr Joe Q. Sixpack. There is no magic button on Joe Q. Sixpack's car.

Oh, sorry, did I intrude reality into your fantasy?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need help.

SO OLD NEWS

[irving47]

Not slashdot's fault... This is news from around 2009!

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-7000/first-gps-projectile-tracking-device/

Re:SO OLD NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

As summarized it's old news, but in TFA the news seems to be that "the firm behind it is now keen to get the system into the UK."

Re:SO OLD NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not have a citation but they were suppose to have created something similar, an taser like device that could be shoot from the front of a police cruiser and disable the cars electronics, most importantly the ignition system cutting out the coil packs thus shutting down the vehicle.

Some thing else is the "drone" programs, or even local sheriffs helicopters, or media helicopters could and should be used to follow the the target, keeping police at a distance and units surrounding a 1 mile radius until the suspect stops.

The fact that none of this is being widely used only proves cops are assholes and shows they have no respect to protect life. On top of all the other stories pouring out about more and more police abuse, and or corruption. Just locally alone the surrounding police departments are constantly in the news over corruption and civil rights violations, and the neighborhoods are dominantly white.

Re:SO OLD NEWS

[Joce640k]

The number of helicopters is quite limited in the UK.

Re:SO OLD NEWS

[SleazyRidr]

This is one of the trends in /. comments that I really don't like. When there's a new technology developed you get people saying that they don't care until it's actually being used. Then when we get stories about new technology being deployed it's "old news" because the technology has already been around. Calling other people wrong doesn't make you look smarter, it just makes you look like a prick.

ghost in the shell

[Sigvatr]

ghost in the shell invented it first

Re:ghost in the shell

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_gadgets

Actually, I don't think I see any sort of gps-bullet type tracking/homing device. There were a lot of tracking devices but none seem to involve shooting a bullet.

I wonder if maybe Get Smart or some other series did the tracking bullet (before GITS).

Re:ghost in the shell

[foobar bazbot]

Try that with your Seburo!

Re:ghost in the shell

[tragedy]

If we're using fictional examples, Spiderman has been using tracking devices in the comics for 30-40 years now. They are fired from the web shooters and stick to targets. They don't use GPS, of course, they're more traditional tracking devices that emit a signal and have to be tracked by the signal. The point is that this idea is hardly new, but it's interesting that there's this real-world working example

Re:ghost in the shell

[sortius_nod]

I came here to say EXACTLY this. WTF? I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?!

Re:ghost in the shell

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?!

I thought this was nudes for nerds.

Imagine my disappointment.

Re:ghost in the shell

[Anonymous Coward]

i like u - tai opera mini mien phi

Re:ghost in the shell

[Anonymous Coward]

Nudes for nerds, stiff that mattress?

CAPTCHA - Dented

Re:ghost in the shell

[Anonymous Coward]

ghost in the shell invented it first

Spider-tracers. Spider-man was doing this before ghost in the shell i believe.

Re:ghost in the shell

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was nudes for nerds.

Imagine my disappointment.

Disappointed? Fix that today by swapping brain cases with our newest geisha's.

Re:ghost in the shell

[antdude]

You want to see naked fat guys like me? Ew.

Re:ghost in the shell

[CrimsonAvenger]

If we're using fictional examples, Spiderman has been using tracking devices in the comics for 30-40 years now. They are fired from the web shooters and stick to targets. They don't use GPS, of course, they're more traditional tracking devices that emit a signal and have to be tracked by the signal.

1) Spider-Tracers were NOT fired from his web shooters, they were thrown by hand.

Not sure what signal they emitted, but it was only detectable via his "spider-sense".

Note that I haven't read Spiderman in 30 years, so things may have changed since then.

Re:ghost in the shell

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Thanks for the image (gag). He said "nudes for nerds" not "nudes of nerds". ;)

Re:ghost in the shell

[ausekilis]

I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?!

I thought this was nudes for nerds.

Imagine my disappointment.

It is, here's one example, without covers

Re:ghost in the shell

[Enry]

Wish I had mod points. James Bond did have a tracker in Goldfinger, but it had to be placed by hand. He never had a gun-fired GPS tracker in the movies or any of the books.

Re:ghost in the shell

[SleazyRidr]

You do realise that Ghost in the Shell is just a cartoon and isn't actually real, right?

Re:ghost in the shell

[foobar bazbot]

You do realize he was objecting to the characterization of the tracking bullets as "James-Bond-Style", right?

Re:ghost in the shell

[Richy_T]

Though of course, Ian Flemming based James Bond on a real living person, Al Gore.

Re:ghost in the shell

[irving47]

I came across some nekkid Klingon chicks a few years back... Need the link?

Re:ghost in the shell

[Darinbob]

Yes, because everyone else who did it first obviously stole the idea from the later Ghost in the Shell.

Re:ghost in the shell

[tragedy]

1) Spider-Tracers were NOT fired from his web shooters, they were thrown by hand.

Sometimes thrown by hand, sometimes from the web shooters. The actual mechanism on the web shooters to fire them is seperate from the regular web shooter mechanism, but still attached to it. It might be modular, not sure.

Not sure what signal they emitted, but it was only detectable via his "spider-sense".

Actually, the earliest ones required a tracking device. Later designs were modified to emit some sort of signal he could follow with his own special senses.

Anyway, the point is that small tracking devices fired from some sort of launcher have been around in fiction for ages. They certainly predate _Ghost in the Shell_.

Re:ghost in the shell

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you're dissapointed?

The car can then be track

[Anonymous Coward]

"The car can then be track from a distance"

Really, Slashdot?

Re:The car can then be track

[Anonymous Coward]

Really. Slashdot.

Typical BBC bias

[DNS-and-BIND]

The StarChase system is a pursuit reduction technology that contains a miniature GPS module encased in a tracking projectile/tag and a launcher mounted on a police vehicle. It is neither a bullet nor a weapon as the BBC story claims. It doesn't use gunpowder, it uses compressed air. The word bullet does not appear anywhere on the company's website - except where another ignorant journalist has used it. You'd think the BBC would be better and more educated than the Des Moines, Iowa local news. You would also be incorrect in that assumption.

You can argue that 'weapon' means 'tool used to achieve a goal' - but come on, this is the BBC we're talking about. You put the words "American police" and "bullet" together and quite naturally scare words like "weapon" come out. Look at the quote on the page: "There are other ways to track vehicles and this could raise some civil liberties issues." What does that even mean? Fleeing from the police, endangering the lives of everyone on the road and all the BBC can think of is how the criminal's rights might be violated...somehow. Unfortunately this mental rot extends throughout the entire organization and its journalists are simply no longer able to think straight. I doubt anyone even thought for a second about the bias. Sad, because once the BBC was a paragon of honesty. Look back at newsreels and 80s broadcasts and you will see a very different organization.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I don't see the bias. The article is calm, clear and balanced, and I don't see any attempts to mislead. The words "bullet" and "weapon" are used reasonably for the sake of easy comprehension and don't allude to anything sinister. The note about civil liberties issues is a passing quote from an expert and not in any way sensationalized.
The contortions necessary to make it look like lies or scaremongering are all yours - I think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, the BBC article is positive about the technology!

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Falconhell]

Lol, when every US cop show has more shooting in the intro than an entire series of a comparable BBC show of much better quality, and you keep shooting each other at worlds highest rates, it seems spot on to me.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[AHuxley]

The US aspect of "raise some civil liberties issues" is well known over a few cases going back many years (say mid 1980's) DNS.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/warrantless-gps-monitoring-scotus/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/gps-tracking-unconstitutional/
Its not bias, its just reality, the English language used to describe objects, actions, physics and past US legal history.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Savage-Rabbit]

The StarChase system is a pursuit reduction technology that contains a miniature GPS module encased in a tracking projectile/tag and a launcher mounted on a police vehicle. It is neither a bullet nor a weapon as the BBC story claims. It doesn't use gunpowder, it uses compressed air. The word bullet does not appear anywhere on the company's website - except where another ignorant journalist has used it. You'd think the BBC would be better and more educated than the Des Moines, Iowa local news. You would also be incorrect in that assumption.

You can argue that 'weapon' means 'tool used to achieve a goal' - but come on, this is the BBC we're talking about. You put the words "American police" and "bullet" together and quite naturally scare words like "weapon" come out. Look at the quote on the page: "There are other ways to track vehicles and this could raise some civil liberties issues." What does that even mean? Fleeing from the police, endangering the lives of everyone on the road and all the BBC can think of is how the criminal's rights might be violated...somehow. Unfortunately this mental rot extends throughout the entire organization and its journalists are simply no longer able to think straight. I doubt anyone even thought for a second about the bias. Sad, because once the BBC was a paragon of honesty. Look back at newsreels and 80s broadcasts and you will see a very different organization.

There are guns that fire projectiles with compressed air and have been since at least the 18th century. This is the Star Chase system, to me it looks like a compressed air gun and that fires a bullet like projectile so the BBC is essentially right. It seems to me that you are getting worked up over nothing because you don't like the BBC and have no made up 'EU wants circus performers to wear hard-hats' type story to get worked up over this morning.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[BlueStrat]

Lol, when every US cop show has more shooting in the intro than an entire series of a comparable BBC show of much better quality, and you keep shooting each other at worlds highest rates, it seems spot on to me.

This is disingenuous as well as plain wrong.

If you take out the stats for inner-city drug-gang-related firearm murders/shootings in the top-six largest US cities with the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws, the US is right in the middle of international gun crime/murder stats. Gang activity is responsible for about 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90% in some. The vast majority of the US is in no way some sort of ultra-violent "wild west", as some who have swallowed the propaganda and are anti-2A/anti-US, try to paint the whole nation.

The US "war on some drugs" is overwhelmingly the most responsible for violent crime including gun violence, aggravated by government increasingly restricting the ability for law-abiding and peaceful potential victims to legally possess and carry firearms for protection, for the daily deluge of tragic drug-financed gang-related deaths in the US and the corresponding high gun-crime rates in those inner cities that push the national numbers up.

It's much easier for US politicians, as it shifts blame and attention away from their power-grabbing "war on some drugs" (and increasingly the "war on 'terrism'") and attacks on civil rights across the board, and works in favor of ever-more-intrusive and abusive government control of the people if privately-owned firearms are vilified and owners demonized instead of addressing the true causes which the government is largely responsible for in the first place.

Don't listen to what they say. It's all just propaganda and pandering to manipulate the ignorant. gullible, apathetic, & plain stupid.

Watch carefully what they do and what the results are. Otherwise, you may just find yourself in a Pink Floyd song.

"Listen son, said the man with the gun, there's room for you inside." - "Us And Them" - Dark Side Of The Moon - Pink Floyd

Strat

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you take out the stats for inner-city drug-gang-related firearm murders/shootings in the top-six largest US cities with the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws, the US is right in the middle of international gun crime/murder stats.

Is that "top-six largest US cities which happen to also have the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws" or "top-six largest US cities and then screw the results so we only look at the ones with strict gun laws"?

> The vast majority of the US is in no way some sort of ultra-violent "wild west", as some who have swallowed the propaganda and are anti-2A/anti-US, try to paint the whole nation.

The majority of this "propaganda" comes from your own cop shows.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Demonantis]

The BBC is pretty bad. I wouldn't say FOX bad, but they love to push an agenda. All news agencies are biased. Let me know when you find one that isn't.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is neither a bullet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet
"A bullet is a projectile propelled by a firearm, sling, or air gun."

It sounds like a projectile propelled by a firearm to me. It is not a cartridge or a bullet that once lived in a cartridge I agree.

> nor a weapon

They are going to the most artistic use of the term "weapon".
> You put the words "American police" and "bullet" together and quite naturally scare words like "weapon" come out.

The use of a "weapon against crime" even for completely none-weapon-y stuff is common in the UK press. New laws, youth clubs etc all become the "Latest weapon against crime!"

I think you are looking for offence were none is meant.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[DNS-and-BIND]

If it agrees with our bias then isn't bias, amirite? It's purely objective and anyone who could disagree is mentally unstable. Because there's only one correct way to think.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[king neckbeard]

It's not bias. The usage of 'weapon', which only occurs once in the title, is to indicate that it is useful in a conflict. You will find lots of results for 'weapon against identity theft' in a Google search. The usage of bullet is an accurate description of what this is. It seems to me that you are the one with the very strong bias.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see it because there isn't any attempt to mislead. However DNS in a fit of impressive hypocrisy decided it was biased because it didn't fit with his worldview and then accused you of being biased for not sharing his opinion either. Apparently his definition of not being biased is when your opinion matches his.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Inda]

The BBC technology website is not a place you go for facts.

"Rory", the editor, is obsessed with Apple and I'm suprised there isn't a paragraph about how "cars can be tracked on an iPad".

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Firethorn]

Not BlueStrat, but going by population:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix

The two that I wouldn't peg as 'most onerous anti-gun laws' would be Houston and Phoenix. Going down the list, I'd have to pull #8 San Diego and #10 San Jose to get six 'extremely anti-gun' cities. Also, it might seem strange but Texas doesn't exactly have the most liberal(IE allowing) gun laws in the state. There are a number that don't require permits at all for CCW, open carry is illegal in most of Texas, etc...

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read your own link, the StarChase website refers to it as a cannon ffs.

I think we can forgive the BBC for toning it down to bullet from cannon shell.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Njovich]

Except of course when it's perfectly fine to describe this as a bullet, there is absolutely nothing in the word bullet that requires the existence of gunpowder. Hell, bullet just means small ball by origin.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[BlueStrat]

Is that "top-six largest US cities which happen to also have the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws" or "top-six largest US cities and then screw the results so we only look at the ones with strict gun laws"?

I replied on impulse and from memory. I believe it was more like if you remove the gang-related gun violence stats from the 12 largest cities, many of which have some of the strictest & most onerous gun laws, the US averages for gun violence/deaths is somewhere in the middle of the international averages.

The point stands, however, that the "highest gun violence rates" claim against the US compared to international stats is disingenuous, misleading, and wrong.

Direct quotes from a United States Department of Justice report released by the Obama Administration in November of 2011. Link below.

âoeBlacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).â

âoeMales represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).â

âoeApproximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000.â

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

> The vast majority of the US is in no way some sort of ultra-violent "wild west", as some who have swallowed the propaganda and are anti-2A/anti-US, try to paint the whole nation.

The majority of this "propaganda" comes from your own cop shows.

Gee, a US TV entertainment show dramatizes it's content? They're not documentaries??? /sarc

Sounds more like people not being intelligent enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

The propaganda I'm talking about and that I know you're well aware of despite your snark comes from the government and anti-gun groups.

Guns are like the panopticon, in that once the technology is out there neither ever will, or even can, be made to go away. The only logical action, as with the panopticon, is to make them universally available for anyone to purchase and possess who is not either underage, psychologically unstable, or a convicted criminal prohibited from owning firearms.

"An armed society is a polite society."

"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

Strat

Re:Typical BBC bias

[TapeCutter]

Objective and rational have well defined meanings. Turns out the universe has implemented many ways of "thinking" but the universe itself also has a bias against irrationality and weeds it out pretty much as "soon" as it emerges.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[TapeCutter]

You know why I like the BBC and their sister stations in Australia, over the years they have been accused of biased by all sides of politics. Using 20/20 hindsight their track record of "getting their facts straight" is hard to beat, and that's the reason why the are castigated so heavily by politicians when they do fuck up.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

> . I believe it was more like if you remove the gang-related gun violence stats from the 12 largest cities, many of which have some of the strictest & most onerous gun laws, the US averages for gun violence/deaths is somewhere in the middle of the international averages.

Thank you.

> Gee, a US TV entertainment show dramatizes it's content? They're not documentaries??? /sarc
> Sounds more like people not being intelligent enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

But this is how the US as a whole (which I am well aware is are silly as "slashdot as whole") displays itself. Going by the cop shows in the US I'd not be comfortable walking round NYC late at night. However the UK cop show are generally no where near as violent and walking round the scary area of London would be no where near as scary.

> The propaganda I'm talking about and that I know you're well aware of despite your snark comes from the government and anti-gun groups.

Not really. The UK has no vocal anti-gun groups, we have no real need as that fight has been [win/lost]. We have some small pro-gun groups.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[fatphil]

> It is neither a bullet [...] It doesn't use gunpowder, it uses compressed air.

Bollocks - it is a projectile flung at force towards a target. You're not confusing the word "bullet" and "cartridge", are you? There's precisely no need for gunpowder or any other explosive to be involved in the flinging of bullets.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the mass killings of late are gang related nor have they happened in the "top-six largest US cities". Locally, we had 2 people shot to death while riding bicycles just in the past 4 days. One more and the suspect becomes a serial killer... nice.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Tyler Durden]

If you think it's biased then it must be biased, amirite? It's purely biased and anyone who could disagree is mentally unstable. Because there's only one correct way to think.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[CMYKjunkie]

Everyone is flaming this poster for using "bias" but I think perhaps it's just a case of the wrong term. I think OP perhaps meant SENSATIONALISM. The "Beeb" and all news these days rely on sensationalism to jazz up stories.

"Bullet" is more sensational than "tag", "projectile", etc. I want to read about a "GPS Bullet" story far more than a "GPS Tag" story!

Re:Typical BBC bias

[TheCarp]

> If you take out the stats for inner-city drug-gang-related firearm murders/shootings in the top-six
> largest US cities with the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws, the US is right in the middle of
> international gun crime/murder stats. Gang activity is responsible for about 48% of violent crime in
> most jurisdictions, and up to 90% in some.

More than that, the thing about gun laws is: You only find them where there is crime. I don't mean to say gun laws cause crime....crime causes gun laws. The problem is gun laws don't solve crime, and don't address any of the issues that do cause it.

So you end up with more onerous gun laws in places with more gun violence, and then yet more because you didn't bother to address the actual causes....which leads to more gun laws.

Fact is, you nailed it. Drug laws create the market, which fund the gangs which drive the crime.... yet, they don't decrease addiction rates. So clearly the answer to the crime and violence is to ban guns. Totally gets right at the root of the issue doesn't it?

Re:Typical BBC bias

[chihowa]

But this is how the US as a whole (which I am well aware is are silly as "slashdot as whole") displays itself.

You're reading into this too much. These shows aren't made as a representation of the US for foreign consumption. They're highly dramatized to provide "entertainment" to domestic viewers. They appear ridiculously over the top to US viewers, too, who recognize that what they're seeing on the TV is not what they see during their day to day life.

Drawing conclusions about the lives of ordinary people from TV shows and movies is not a valid approach. Even relatively tame shows like the [US or UK] version of The Office are considerably more exciting and interesting than an actual day at the office.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

So, that would make him a typical Obama supporter.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read your own link, the StarChase website refers to it as a cannon ffs.

I think we can forgive the BBC for toning it down to bullet from cannon shell.

Nitpick: 'Gun' is actually the original word for cannon. In modern day military jargon everything over 15mm caliber is a cannon and that thing looks to be well over 15mm.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

A bullet is a projectile. It's not being sensational, it's using a word correctly.

The makers of the system call it a canon, which is far more sensational than weapon.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[mrchaotica]

By your definition arrows, cannonballs, and cows thrown via trebuchet are also "bullets."

Re:Typical BBC bias

[r_jensen11]

By your definition arrows, cannonballs, and cows thrown via trebuchet are also "bullets."

Cannonballs are large bullets. Compare cannons to muskets and then ask yourself what ammunition muskets used.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[mrchaotica]

IMO, "bullet" has at least a connotation -- if not a denotation -- of small size. I mean, we don't call the shells fired by modern artillery "bullets," do we? (Maybe you do, but I don't.)

(By the way, I wouldn't call a musket ball a "bullet" either because it's not the right shape.)

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Flere Imsaho]

"There are other ways to track vehicles and this could raise some civil liberties issues." What does that even mean?

That the UK gives a shit about civil liberties, unlike the US with their BS "Because of, you know, terrorists" crap?

Re:Typical BBC bias

[BlueStrat]

"Score 0, Troll"

30% Insightful
30% Overrated
40% Troll

LMAO!! Sounds about right for the cross-section of /. knee-jerk reactions to raw truths which upset slash-PC group-think.

About a third are able to think critically & logically, and not allow easily manipulated primitive lizard-brain emotional reactions and/or political/partisan ideologies to hold intellectual sway. The rest would seem to prefer to reject objective reality and substitute it with a reality of their own making (or of somebody else's making, for the lazy/apathetic/stupid).

Thanks for all the mod-validations both positive & negative!

Strat

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Note he says "small ball" not a "stick with a point" or "huge ass ball" (ew) or "Cow balls" (double ew).

One thing though, is all of these are technically "missiles."

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Falconhell]

Here is some reality for you. After a gun massacre 20 years ago, we got rid off a lot of high powered weapons from our country. In the 20 years before we had 13 gun massacres, since then zero. You really had to twist the stats to make what you laughably think is a case Strat, but all you achieved was an epic fail.
Americans love violence by gun, and as long as they only kill Americans I don't mind a bit really, less for the rest of us to worry about.
Of course it's really all about overcompensation.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Falconhell]

Lol when you quote Henlein as any sort of authority you mange to look more stupid than usual, and that ain't easy!

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Falconhell]

So if you leave out most of the gun deaths there are less, why yes. The fact is your TV shows love of violence directly reflects
Your populations view of violence as a legitimate method to solve problems, both at home and internationally. It would be funny if it was not so tragic, at least in the case of those killed by your military. It's hard to be concerned when you kill each other, in fact probably good for the rest of the world, 1 less American= 1 less violent nut job.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Falconhell]

Yeh, troll is spot on.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol when you quote Henlein as any sort of authority you mange to look more stupid than usual, and that ain't easy!

So, you ridiculing the quoting of a man who is orders of magnitude more intelligent, imaginative, and learned than you, and who has had a greater positive impact and contributed more to humanity than you ever possibly could or ever will...uhhh...wow...let me get this straight...you think that makes the *OP* look stupid??

I don't think so, pal. You only proved your own weak-sauce reasoning abilities and minimal intelligence. Of course the simple fact that your "reply" only ad-hom'ed with nothing else of substance to refute with, pretty well confirmed that anyway.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, troll is spot on.

Yup, everybody knows that negative mods are just as good...even better...than an intelligent refutation. Especially when one lacks the latter.

You are what is wrong with society. Grow up and learn how to think critically and for yourself.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Words have meanings. Using them with different intent doesn't mean they aren't being used incorrectly.

This device is not a weapon, no matter what anyone might say...idiotic journos included.

Re:Typical BBC bias

[Demonantis]

You can't bias facts. I was talking about the opinions they inject around those facts. Politics has nothing to do with it either.

Not a James Bond gadget

[93 Escort Wagon]

I remember Bond sticking a tracking device in the trunk/boot of Goldfinger's car, as well as in the pocket of the one gangster who decides not to buy into Goldfinger's scheme (and ends up getting shot by OddJob, then crushed); and I remember him tracking the one Goodnight placed in the trunk of Scaramanga's car (where she also ended up). But I don't believe Bond ever fired one out of a gun - that's more of an American cop show gimmick.

Re:Not a James Bond gadget

[JockTroll]

Exactly. One was used by the female protagonist in the pilot episode of the Robocop TV series. Of course, nobody likes to do any research.

Even earlier

[Okian Warrior]

Even earlier than that: The movie Kiss the Girls and Make Them Die" (1966) had one.

Not a bad movie for its time. The movie is a spoof of James Bond movies featuring a completely tricked-out Rolls Royce. (You can watch the trailer here.)

Re:Even earlier

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider Runaway http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 to be the best example of self guiding bullets.

Civil Liberties Issues?

[TubeSteak]

What issues are those?
A hot pursuit is the perfect situation to tag a vehicle with a GPS device and then back off.
The social benefit of not chasing someone far outweighs the social cost of the transient tracking.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What issues are those?"

      How about because the tech will be so easy to use that it will be used on everybody, all the time, for any reason, NSA style.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[EdIII]

Not to mention one very important point....

It's fired from a fucking cop car

What on Earth is stealthy about that? It's compressed air but that does not mean you would not hear the thunk on your car. It's also on the outside of your damn car at a level that can be seen with the most inattentive of inspections. How long could it go unnoticed?

There are no civil liberty issues here at all. It's abundantly clear that it's only viable during a high speed pursuit. Civil liberties my ass. If the cops are chasing us down without due process, and we have legitimate reasons to fear them following us, we are a hell of a lot more fucked. At that point civil liberties would be a luxury.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[aXis100]

Err, in order to do anything about it the perps would have to stop and get out of the car. That gives police an opportunity to catch them.

Not exactly difficult logic.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I agree what you're saying but the problem is not about protecting the innocent, it's not overpowering the police like it is right now. Unmarked black police cars, ridiculous hummer-tanks, the police force is armed just about as much as a spec ops unit and the list just goes on. Sure, it can save lives but just how many lives will it take through corruption?

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It's fired from a fucking cop car

. . . which will probably itself be enough to cause the driver to crash.

Despite what you might see on TV or in the movies, most folks get a little jumpy and freak out, when a copy hangs out the window of his car and fires a gun at you.

I recall that there were similar problems when motorcycle cops started using hand held radar speed guns.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought there were discussions about needing a court order before attaching a GPS tracking device to a car. IANAL, but I'd suspect this might produce some grey areas (a.k.a. business opportunities for lawyers).

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

A hot pursuit

Also known as stalking someone attractive...

is the perfect situation to tag a vehicle with a GPS device and then back off.

Now that's hi-tech stalking.

The social benefit of not chasing someone far outweighs the social cost of the transient tracking.

So true. People kinda lose trust in ya when you've been identified as a stalker.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Dereck1701]

"A hot pursuit is the perfect situation"

That assumes that police will limit themselves to using these ONLY in such situations, it takes a 5 minute Google search to turn up case after case where police used laws/equipment far outside of their original intent. In this case assuming the price comes down and the use of them is not properly tracked officers could easily tag former girlfriends, enemies, & family members to track their whereabouts. Of course it is illegal, but that hasn't stopped officers from threatening to murder people, framing people for vehicular assault, & attempting to destroy evidence. I'm all for police having the tools and legal status to do their work, but there needs to be severe criminal penalties for when they over step their bounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pjXKCKyP44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuyvzWwvRBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MesDaXPkrNQ

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[cdrudge]

Despite what you might see on TV or in the movies, most folks get a little jumpy and freak out, when a copy hangs out the window of his car and fires a gun at you.

Except there isn't a cop that hangs out the window to fire a gun at you with this device. The "gun" is mounted in the grill of the police vehicle. All the officer has to do is align themselves with the vehicle they are pursuing and press a button. The fleeing vehicle would have no idea they are being "targeted" until the thunk is heard.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the cops are chasing us down without due process, and we have legitimate reasons to fear them following us"

Like speeding tickets

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[andydread]

so the perp hears the thunk on their car as the leave and once they are out of sight they simply stop the car and carjack someone with a different car to get away. putting them at risk.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[plover]

That takes rational, clear thought. A perp in a high speed chase is panicky and probably focused on "get away now" at the expense of everything else. He probably won't recognize the thunk on his trunk; if he does, and he analyzes it rationally, he'll probably realise car jacking is a more serious offense than what he was running from. The one thing this situation is not is "simple."

We tend to give all criminals a lot of credit for being clever and ruthless, because that's what we see in movies. However, that's only because clever, ruthless villains make for interesting movies and fiction. Most are run-of-the-mill stupid, and the really violent offenders are thankfully few and far between.

High speed chases are always very risky, not only to the perp and the police, but to the public at large. Right now, many cops are under orders to break off pursuit in the interests of public safety. As a society, we have decided it is better to let the guy run away rather than chase him into a school bus full of kids, even though we don't like the idea that he should get away with it. This tool might help reduce the risks as well as the chances of him getting away.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

What issues are those?
A hot pursuit is the perfect situation to tag a vehicle with a GPS device and then back off.
The social benefit of not chasing someone far outweighs the social cost of the transient tracking.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that cops MUST have a warrant in order to use GPS tracking systems. AFAIK there are no "public safety" loopholes in that decision. Nor should there be as cops would abuse them. Let them use their EMP cannons instead. [[http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/2339204/electromagnetic-pulse-gun-to-help-in-police-chases]] NOTE: Slashdot article is from 2010 and the equipment "filled a lab". But I have read other articles that they have shrank the device down considerably and it was successfully deployed and battlefield tested in Afghanistan (2011).

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[X0563511]

I have seen high speed chases where the driver was executing maneuvers in such a way... he/she clearly was not only in charge of all their faculties, but calm.

Seriously - we're talking about multiple spin recoveries (after PIT maneuver attempts) in a row. Car started to spin, they spun into it and completely around and kept on going - didn't even veer off course.

Eventually it was a mechanical failure that stopped the chase - one of the tires finally had enough and blew.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[X0563511]

If they wanted to do such things it would be far easier for them to plant trackers surreptitiously - not fired noisily while tailgating the target.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly do you propose taging such people and not having them notice the tracker or the loud THUNK sound?

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa. I took the "civil liberties" comment to mean there are issues with the OTHER means of tracking the fleeing vehicle. Implying that the other means would involve prior setup of some means of tracking, and would therefore be available before someone decided to flee.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[khallow]

It also takes hearing the "thunk" in a high noise environment. And if another car is acquired, the process can be repeated.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[cellocgw]

Err, in order to do anything about it the perps would have to stop and get out of the car. That gives police an opportunity to catch them.

Not exactly difficult logic.

Speaking of JamesBondGadgets, remember his rotating license plate thingy? Ok, so now the crooks just need a large backplate on their car w/ remote disconnect. The GPS payload (to avoid the word "bullet") attaches, they free the plate, and off they go!

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but those are rare. They get airplay because they're interesting. Most chases end in less than a few miles with a collision.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

so the perp hears the thunk on their car as the leave and once they are out of sight they simply stop the car and carjack someone with a different car to get away. putting them at risk.

The police are still following you, just not close enough that you can see them.

If you come to a stop then they'll just speed up and catch up to you again. Stopping the car would be really dumb unless you have a bolt-hole to disappear down before the police are riding your ass again in 30 seconds.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[cusco]

Actually, anyone who has done a lot of driving in northern Michigan in the winter will deal with a PIT maneuver without even thinking.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[jma05]

> once they are out of sight they simply stop the car and carjack someone with a different car to get away

Real world isn't GTA. What fraction of car chases involve the subject changing cars, by carjacking no less? Easier to just look for the device in the rear, the only place it can realistically stick at, and yank it off, than acquire another vehicle.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Flere Imsaho]

Sure, because cops never expand the use of tools given to them beyond their intended purpose e.g tasers - designed to be a non-lethal force alternative, not a "Stop arguing and comply or I'll taser the shit out of you" torture device.

Most people don't stop and examine their car after an impact noise unless the car is obviously impaired in some way.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[EdIII]

You gotta put your thinking cap on here.

How does it stick? Does it penetrate the surface with little barbs? Not likely. It might hit somebody and kill them. Take out an eye. It's probably a magnetic projectile which implies a large surface area, or some sticky ass glue.

Either way, you would have to be blind not to see it.

We already know from reports that the FBI and the cops will just put trackers on your car directly. That's done underneath the car where long term operation is more likely.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Flere Imsaho]

Either way, you would have to be blind not to see it.

Speaking of blind, you should put your reading glasses on and have another look at my comment. Sure it's easy enough to spot - if you stop the car, get out and have a look. BTW, it's adhesive https://www.starchase.com/uploads/products/marketing-slicks-3.pdf

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[EdIII]

You still have to be blind to not see something stuck to your car. Especially at that height.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[EdIII]

LOL.

Yeah... you keep telling yourself that. I just saw the link. Are you fucking with me?

There is NO WAY you're going to miss a 4 1/2 inch black tube sticking off your car. What are you trying to say? You fear the civil liberty issues of law enforcement spending a billion dollars shooting these things at cars just for fuck's sake?

So your fear is while you are driving they are going to tag you and infringe upon your rights? Come on. Be Serious.

They are not going to spend that kind of money doing that, and more to the point, it's a non viable tool for mass surveillance. That's all I give a shit about too. Mass surveillance is the real concern here.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues?

[Flere Imsaho]

*sigh* I'll try again.

  Sure, you'd spot it when you got out of your car. What I'm saying (repeatedly) is that most people wouldn't stop their car after a minor impact sound unless the car starts misbehaving. Cops could think "That guy looks suspect, I'll tag his car and see where he goes" and most people would be none the wiser until the got to their destination and (possibly) noticed the device.

If this becomes popular

[Inev]

If this becomes popular, then so will GPS jammers for any who expect a need to make a getaway.

Re:If this becomes popular

[AHuxley]

Re GPS and cell jammers:
Guess the cops will have to buy into larger frequency hopping beacons that try a few different types of triangulation - gps, cell and other gov or private tracking networks.
With that comes a larger battery too i.e. the bullet might have to grow to be a bigger beacon?
In the end laws will be altered for a new car to have http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-28/big-brother-coming-your-car with an encrypted ignition override.
The cops will network into the car and stop it.
Try and remove the blackbox and the car of interest will be more tricky to start.
Guess its back to using a truck to "recover" the car.

Re:If this becomes popular

[EdIII]

With Google's project and laws quickly coming on the books for automated transportation you're spot on.

Forget freedom or privacy anymore. The cops will be jacked in to a transportation network that will tell them where your car is at all times. It's already about that easy with a cell phone. It won't be possible to not have it either. It's by far the most logical outcome since cars communicating with other cars can dramatically increase efficiency. Meaning less traffic during rush hours. Go just a little bit further and it will make sense to send course adjustments to a car from a centralized control center that is making adjustments for city wide efficiency.

Add a coupla dashes of CISPA here and there... and voila! ... The Minority Report. Just missing that whole precog thing going on.

The most hilarious part about it is that people will be twatting that they're on their way to work automatically cuz the toll booths will twat it for you :)

Re:If this becomes popular

[citizenr]

Dont know about US, but in Europe its pretty standard for a car thieve to use unlocked ECU to bypass any immobilizers\electronic keys.
Long forgotten are the days of connecting wires under the steering column, now they just swap computer and car magically starts.

Re:If this becomes popular

[Firethorn]

You're overthinking the issue. If they're jamming GPS that means they're transmitting. If you're transmitting all they need is equipment to track the jammer. They stop jamming and you go back to tracking the tracker, they jam you track the jammer.

Re:If this becomes popular

[fatphil]

The problem is that jammers have, by design, a rather large RF footprint.

Re:If this becomes popular

[Jason Levine]

Wouldn't it be easier for the criminals to ditch the car once the police have backed off? Then they could steal another car and continue their escape untracked.

Re:If this becomes popular

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't know how far one can track a GPS jamming signal, but the GPS signals themselves are very weak, so noising them out would not take very much signal.

Re:If this becomes popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be easier for the criminals to ditch the car once the police have backed off? Then they could steal another car and continue their escape untracked.

If they don't hear the 'thunk!" sound as it hits. I saw video of this 'bullet' on a news show yesterday. A little door flips open from the police car's hood, and a 3" long, 2" wide cylinder shoots out from it and attaches (via sticky glue?) to the suspect's external spare tire mounted on the SUV's tailgate. Would a panicky criminal concentrating on trying to escape the patrol car notice and realize what the thunk sound means?

Re:If this becomes popular

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why these days immobilizer strategies use more than one ECU and include an ECU in a difficult to reach location.

Re:If this becomes popular

[Anonymous Coward]

The jammer just needs to jam the incomming GPS signal until the tracker can be removed from the vehicle - the tracker also has a cellular radio that transmits the GPS coordinates.

Re:If this becomes popular

[Anonymous Coward]

If this becomes popular, then so will GPS jammers for any who expect a need to make a getaway.

Then they'll just add some radio direction finding hardware that tracks the GPS jammer. Duh. The FCC and law enforcement agencies are already deploying systems to catch ordinary people using them.

A GPS jammer is just a transmitter after all. Either the criminal broadcasts the position or the tracker broadcasts the position so it's lose-lose.

Re:If this becomes popular

[Firethorn]

, so noising them out would not take very much signal.

You're still going to be the source of far louder signal than the satellites overhead, depending on how sophisticated your jammer is. I remember from somewhere that a non-discriminatory jammer* needs to transmit at least 10X as 'loudly' as it's source.

An AC suggested that they simply need to jam until they can get rid of the tracker, but my though is that that probably requires stopping, and if they're tracking your jamming, you're not going to get to stop long before the cops block the area off. For that matter if the device uses the cellular network to provide it's location, there shouldn't be anything stopping it from still providing coarse network based location, which is again 'close enough' for the police to set up blockades and locate the vehicle relatively quickly. They might need to check a block rather than a parking spot. To prevent this they'd need a cellular jammer as well, which would indeed need to be higher powered than the GPS jammer(easier to track). For that matter, at that point you don't NEED the GPS jammer because you're blocking it from talking.

Of course, all this could be rendered quite moot if the device doesn't use the cellular network, or even just has a backup transmitter to act as a more traditional homing beacon on a 'nondisclosed frequency'. Now you either need a frequency analyzer and an adjustible jammer(remember you're doing this while involved in a high speed chase...), or a very high power multi-frequency one that will probably attract the military's attention. It could even be multi-purpose:
1. GPS Jammed - coarse network from cellular systems,
2. Cellular jammed - use alternate frequency system to transmit GPS coords
3. Both jammed - transmit what it can on alternate, basically traditional homing beacon.

More 'options' present themselves the more I think about it. For example, why not hook into the satellite phone system as well?

*IE it just transmits noise as opposed to something that's targeted at an application, like some wireless network jammers that actually spam disconnect notices instead of just noise. Think of it as the difference between a network attack that works by trying to flood the network connections as opposed to a syn flood.

Re:If this becomes popular

[bill_mcgonigle]

Good points - as long as there are a variety of trackers using different frequencies, the cat-and-mouse game is going to be hard to beat.

Fire them at the suspect's person

[dohzer]

The chase will end a lot quicker!

Cue usual paranoiacs

[RightSaidFred99]

This is only positive, there are no ramifications for your privacy for one simple reason - it's only useful in a high speed chase. When they want to track you (to see how many times you drive by your latest stalk-ee or to see how many cheetos runs you make to the local Quik-E-Mart) they can just attach it under your car much more easily already.

Re:Cue usual paranoiacs

[Antique Geekmeister]

> it's only useful in a high speed chase.

I'm afraid that's not true. While shooting your car with such a device will probably trigger a car alarm on a modern, high value car, the ability to implant such a device remotely without ever being seen near the car is invaluable for both legitimate and illegitimate surveillance. The ability for an officer, 50 yards away, to implant 2 or 3 tracking devices in only a few seconds and get away unseen, without surveillance cameras showing them near the vehicle, is invaluable. Outside a loud bar frequented by gang members, it could be a much safer way for the officer to attach tracking devices to select vehicles.

The potential for abuse is also certainly there: if the device is small enough to be effectively fired as a bullet, it's also small enough to be effectively dropped in the vehicle or snuck into someone's bag or purse.

Re:Cue usual paranoiacs

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post. I can't believe how many naive idiots frequent this place.

it's only useful in a high speed chase.

o rly? r u srs?

ffs grow up man. Whatever the police can use, they WILL use, regardless of circumstance.

head in the sand?

[Gravis Zero]

"GPS bullets that can track the location of a suspect's car"

"There are other ways to track vehicles and this could raise some civil liberties issues" -- Dave Allen of Leeds University

shh! nobody tell him about PRISM or his head might explode.

I can see a flaw

[moderators_are_w*nke]

If your car is being GPS tracked, and the police aren't giving chase just park up and run off. Idelly push it down a hill empty so they don't notice it's stopped (because that's not dangerous at all). Let the police have their fun and GPS track an empty car.

Re:I can see a flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it may not help with organized crimes. But a lot of criminals are just plain stupid. Plus reducing the chances of accidents maybe worth losing a few.
Add finally it may be that cops still follow the criminal, just that now they can co-ordinate with other cops in the general directions where the criminal is heading.

Re:I can see a flaw

[steelfood]

Send it off a cliff. The cops will think you're dead and stop chasing. That or they might still chase after it.

James Bond?

[meerling]

What about the 60s TV show Batman and his Bat Tracer?
Him and Robin were always pegging villians cars with those things.

I don't remember James Bond doing that, but then again, I can't say I remember all the details of those movies, and I haven't seen any with the latest Bond, but still, the Batman TV show was from 66-68 and 120 episodes.
(That show was really corny, but hey, I was only 6 when I watched it in reruns. I definitely didn't watch it when it was originally aired. Come to think of it, pretty much everything on Saturday morning was rather campy.)

Oh yes, if someone wants to complain that it wasn't GPS, I guess you have to remember 2 things.
First GPS is rather new, the first GPS satellite was launched in 89, and it wasn't completed until 94. There were other navigation systems before then.
Second, the Batman TV show didn't say how the bat tracers worked, but they did put up the exact location on a map, so they were a lot better than the basic radio beacon you would have expected back then. Of course, this is Batman. A rich guy with access to all the best super tech of a world where super heroes and super science exists.

Oh well. It doesn't really matter. It's just that it's late, and I feel like pointing this out. :P :D
Don't forget the past, otherwise it will p0wn you ya n00b !
(Trust me, nobody wants to get teabagged by grandpa.)

Short sentences cause crime

[Anonymous Coward]

If they made the sentence for stealing a car, twenty years in prison, you would see almost ALL car theft stop within a few months, would you not?

Re:Short sentences cause crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Just like long sentences for murder and rape have completely ended those crimes.

Oh...

Re:Short sentences cause crime

[Valdrax]

If they made the sentence for stealing a car, twenty years in prison, you would see almost ALL car theft stop within a few months, would you not?

Not really. Most criminals are not fully rational actors; after all, if crime were rational in spite of the costs, more people would do it. Impulse control, desperation, and an inflated sense of the ability to get away with it are major factors in the commission of crime that are completely unaffected by sentence length. Otherwise, who would kill someone in a death penalty state unless they thought their life was worth the other person being dead?

The evidence on deterrence is generally a wash. We don't have good info on what people would have crossed the line from ordinary citizen to criminal without the laws as they are. The best thing we can study is effects of prison length on recidivism rates (i.e. on people who have already demonstrated themselves to be willing to break the law in spite of the current sentences).

This meta-analysis suggests that longer prison sentences increase recidivism rates slightly. In contrast, this Italian study suggests that a threat of longer sentences upon return to prison *does* deter released inmates who have committed minor offenses but has no effect on more hardened criminals. Bringing economic rationality into the picture, a review of going rates for drug mules in markets with varying sentences shows that deterrence can be overriden by offering to pay more to compensate for the riskier service. Like I said, a wash.

Re:Short sentences cause crime

[Anonymous Coward]

you are so fucking stupid, it isn't even funny.

Are murder rates less in capital-punishment states?

Fuck, I can't believe you even have the skills to post.

stealing a gps

[BeaverCleaver]

If you drive away with the tracker attached to your car, can the cops charge you with stealing it?

Re:stealing a gps

[Anonymous Coward]

Theft requires intent in most jurisdictions, and most likely the "thief" does not want to take the tracker away with him. If he does, he deserves to be charged with stupiditiy :-)

Re:stealing a gps

[AmiMoJo]

If they attach it to your car and damage the paint work, and then you are later found innocent can you recover the cost of the repair from them?

I have often wondered about this when the police raid people's houses. They smash the door in, take all your stuff and often damage or lose it. A couple of years later when you are found innocent you get back your laptop and it's battered, hard drive wiped (the UK police do wipe innocent people's drives for some reason) and tatty. What compensation is available?

Re:stealing a gps

[ledow]

Theft is "intention to permanently deprive". Thus, if you intend to do it, quite possibly. However there are issues of criminal damage on the part of the police if you are innocent (same as if they ram someone off the road but got the wrong car).

Also, to answer another post, if the police kick in your door they have to make it good. Especially if you're innocent (yes, you could argue for the cost of it even if you were guilty but you'd have to have good reason, i.e. they didn't correctly call "Police", or warn you, or whatever). If they take your property, they are not allowed to wipe the drives unless you had something illegal on them (that's again criminal damage). If they did, you can sue for compensation. The whole "can the police make you delete photos" debacle clarified that issue quite well. No, they can't. It's not their property. But if the photos are illegal, they can confiscate them (which would eventually include deletion if you were guilty) but they can't "damage" them or delete them until they are brought before a court (that's basically destruction of evidence) and they can't make YOU do it either (again, without a court agreeing in your specific case). They can request it quite forcefully but if they make you do it, it's illegal. Same for any data on confiscated items.

However, you are not entitled to a lot of things like getting your data back immediately even if it's business-critical data when the PC is confiscated. Tough, basically. You can try to sue for compensation later if you can prove the value of that data and that they absolutely did not have to confiscate that PC (which is almost impossible, because they have a legal right/requirement to gather evidence).

Basically, if you're left out-of-pocket as a result of their actions, because they were in error (you didn't do the crime, the goods were confiscated illegally, etc.) you can sue for compensation. Otherwise, they have to return what they confiscated in the condition it was taken or, again, you can sue for compensation.

It might take years, of course, and not be worth the hassle but you don't avoid because it might be hassle - if you think you were wronged according to the letter of the law, then pursue it relentlessly until a judge tells you otherwise.

Re:stealing a gps

[cusco]

Really? You guys in the UK are lucky. If the police can in any way connect a drug charge to an arrest they will, because then they can confiscate anything even remotely related to drugs (including the car you smoked the joint in and the house you grew the plant in) and sell it. In some departments that makes up a really considerable percentage of their annual budget. Very frequently the property gets sold before the case even comes before the judge, and if you're found innocent you now have to sue the new owner to get your property back.

Oh, and yes, when they smash down your door (even when they've gone to the wrong address) it is solely your responsibility to repair the damage at your own cost. It's hell for landlords.

Exchange Rate

[carou]

It costs $5,000 (£3,108) to install and each bullet costs $500 (£312).

Apparently the exchange rate was updated while they were in the middle of writing that sentence.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?! - tai game pikachu mien phi

Not a very good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was driving some stolen car (I know the car may not always be stolen, I'm just swinging for the fences here), why would I care if there was a tracking device on the car? I just wouldn't want the cops right on my ass, that way I could simply ditch the car and run or get a new car.

Seriously, hasn't anyone played GTA lately?

What could, er, went wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, doggies. You all know the drill by now, don't you? First, it's for tagging fleeing criminals. Then, henious child molestors will have to have them er, "inserted" ("attached", maybe?) . Then, dangerous prisoners being transported, then .... all the way until everyone has to have one to go out in the street. Babies too, of course. And, gues who'll have the blockers and spoofers? Not you, certainly. Of course, no fair system would arrest you and neuter your family just because your ID was detected near a crime scene. Would it, now? And, guess who'll operate the $y$tem (M or G)?

HA! HA!

[Guest316]

This is why I keep the back of my car coated in vaseline. Checkmate, Johnny Law!

What about the judge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will he have a special bullet too, to shoot the warrant at the chasing police car?

BMFG Tesla Coil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hidden in the gas tank, of course. But you could then claim it to be an "electric vehicle". Ergo, tax exemption and, Profit! Aha! :)

how about gps jammer? or 3g jammer?

[sirber]

subject sais it all :)

Ineffective?

[Fredde87]

Surely the criminals would pick up on this new technique very quickly? If its a stolen car (which I would assume most police chases are caused by), wouldn't the criminals just dump the car and flee on foot since there is no cops chasing right up behind them? I guess one could argue that its better that a car thief gets away and no one gets hurt rather than a car chase were innocent people might be injured or killed, but I don't see how this system would catch even close to the same amount of criminals as the police catch today...

Re:Ineffective?

[PPH]

Suspect gets ahead of the cops, pulls over an unsticks this from his car. Then sticks it to a passing bus.

Also, there's the 'chain of evidence' problem. The police lose contact with the vehicle/driver. Later, they might recover the vehicle. But who was driving?

Re:Ineffective?

[Valdrax]

If its a stolen car (which I would assume most police chases are caused by)...

Nope, stolen cars are only about a third of ultimate reasons why people run: only 32% were driving a stolen car, 27% had a suspended driverâ(TM)s license, 27% just wanted to avoid arrest, and 21% were DUI. (Note that there is some overlap here, and that adds up to more than 100%).

I guess one could argue that its better that a car thief gets away and no one gets hurt rather than a car chase were innocent people might be injured or killed, but I don't see how this system would catch even close to the same amount of criminals as the police catch today...

There's an important need to balance public safety with law enforcement, as the article I linked above says. Roughly speaking, a person died every day from a high-speed chase in the time period studied (1994-1998), and 42% of those people were innocent bystanders.

Better yet, if you still hunger for justice, most criminals interviewed would have slowed down once they felt safe. Adrenaline and the fight or flight reflex are huge factors in choosing to run in the first place. This would give police a chance to set up to trap the criminal in a more leisurely way, since they know where the criminal is going, and it would be easy to get cars in the area ready to swoop in in case the car came to a stop.

But really, I think most car owners would be happier just to get the car back with a little paint damage than to see the criminal brought down at risk to someone's life. (And if they aren't, screw 'em.)

Re:Ineffective?

[Valdrax]

Suspect gets ahead of the cops, pulls over an unsticks this from his car. Then sticks it to a passing bus.

Good luck with that. It uses "industrial-grade adhesive" (whatever that means) and not magnets. Also, you rarely have high-speed chases in areas where buses can be reached out and touched without being noticed.

Also, there's the 'chain of evidence' problem. The police lose contact with the vehicle/driver. Later, they might recover the vehicle. But who was driving?

If they don't catch up to the car later with the driver still inside, then that's going to just be good old fashioned detective work. Only 32% of chases involve a stolen car, so finding out who the owner is will give you a pretty strong lead on who was driving, especially if the dash cam was running during the chase to provide a good shot of what the driver looked like from behind.

Re:Ineffective?

[PPH]

Also, you rarely have high-speed chases in areas where buses can be reached out and touched without being noticed.

But this eliminates the high speed chase. The perp might have 10 or 20 minutes before the cops round up some back up and home in on the signal.

especially if the dash cam was running during the chase to provide a good shot of what the driver looked like from behind.

A hoodie.

Re:Ineffective?

[Valdrax]

But this eliminates the high speed chase. The perp might have 10 or 20 minutes before the cops round up some back up and home in on the signal.

Doubtful. 75% of people involved in high speed chases (surveyed by the FBI, linked in another post in this thread) say that they would have slowed down to a safe speed as soon as they got away. Once that happens, it's easy to keep pace out of sight from a distance and move in as soon as the car stops. A stopped car is far easier to catch than one still running.

Plus, if the thieves abandon the car and run away on foot? I guess that's good for the person whose car got stolen. All they have to repair is paint damage.

A hoodie.

Gosh, I guess hoodies are completely indistinguishable and/or impossible to find once the the suspect is caught! Too bad people don't leave any sort of other evidence like fingerprints, hairs, surveillance camera footage, etc.! Maybe if we had detectives on the police force, we might be able to do something about that.

I mean, really. You can easily build a strong enough case to convict if you look for it in the vast majority of cases. Criminals, especially people who commit theft, are rarely masterminds and leave trails all over the place.

insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if someone who proves themselves as 'innocent' would get to have the luxury of having the police department pay for the new paint job to fix the dings that this 'bullet' will cause?

Can I get one?

[sabbede]

I'd love to be able to tag dangerous drivers so the police can brutalize them at their own leisure.

Not that I support police brutality in cases other than reckless or rude driving. And none of that namby-pamby Rodney King stuff either. I'm talking Abner Louima.

Re:Can I get one?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already got mine, and the next time you don't signal or I feel you've cut me off, then... Tag, you're it!

Re:Can I get one?

[Lumpy]

It's called printing up a bunch of "I shoot cops" bumper stickers and just put on on the back of their car. The first cop that sees it will do multiple cavity searches.

Re:Can I get one?

[sabbede]

I've considered that option, but it requires that you follow the person to their destination. And if I'm going to go through the trouble of doing that, I can just explain to them in person why they are bad people. With violence.

The BBC explained

[SmallFurryCreature]

The thing to remember about the BBC is that is the elite, who know they are the elite, getting an elite salary living in the elite section of London being quite ashamed about being elite, ridled with white guilt but not to the point of you know, hiring a "black" person. It is fun when you watch a show like "Have I got news for you" and you realize that 99% of the presentors and guests make more per episode then most Brits make in a year. "Deayton's salary was halved to £25,000 a show but the latest revelations forced Ms Heggessey's hand." http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/29/broadcasting.bbc6

That was ten years ago. HALVED TO, so it USED to be 50.000 pounds. Per episode. The series used to do two seasons per year of around a dozen episodes. And 50.000 pounds was his fee PER SHOW!

Now I don't know the exact economics of the UK but I think it is fair to assume that for most people, 50k a YEAR would be a nice salary to have. This guy gets it for a couple hours "work". His co-hosts frequently portray themselves as either being "working class" or defender of the down-trodden but they get similar fees and have other jobs besides this show.

Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson made a joke about the UK soldiers who were captured by Iran that they made quite a nice salary "oh that is per year!?! never mind" he then quipped. It is funny but it shows the complete separation between normal people (the audience of the BBC) and its stars. What do these people, whether they host a popular entertainment program, a news show or the news itself about losing their job and not knowing how you are going to pay next weeks rent (and no, not knowing how you are going to pay the mortgage on your 3rd 5 million pound summer home is not the same thing).

Or do you think Angus Deaton getting his salary halved from a mere 50k to 25k for an half hour show is on the same level as a pensioner having their benefits cut?

The BBC used to be a rare mix of working class and oxford silver spoon people making TV if not together then at least in the same building. This has changed. The pay has gotten so good that even if they were working class when they started, they aren't after a few years. This has rotted the BBC to the point you can see it in their news service, they just don't get the working class, let alone the class without jobs anymore. They feel sorry for them but like a nobel who sends his butler with the remains of the turkey dinner to the orphanage. Watch some HIGNFY eps were there are working class union reps on. The hostility is palpatable, how dare these people who make less then 20k a year tells us what it is really about.

People never see bias

[SmallFurryCreature]

People never see bias, if they agree with the bias.

The first time one of these misses the car and

[mark_reh]

hits and injures or kills a pedestrian, and a multi million $ suit follows, they will disappear.

Imagine the questioning in court: "so officer, tell us how you aimed the projectile"
"uh, you don't aim, you just point your car where you want the projectile to go"
"would you consider that a safe way to operate your handgun?
"no"

Re:The first time one of these misses the car and

[Lumpy]

You must not be from the USA. Police can kill or do anything they want without recourse. It's illegal to sue a police officer for anything, even outright homicide.

Not safer

[gerardrj]

Inevitably the cause of unsafe conditions in a high speed chase is the run-away driver/suspect. Unless you start training the general population on high-speed driving techniques (and I'm not saying that is a bad idea) these bullets don't increase safety.

Re:Not safer

[chihowa]

The idea here is to tag the vehicle and stop the "chase". One the cops back off the car, the run-away driver can stop driving like a lunatic. They were likely only driving at high speeds because they were being chased.

The police are not your friends.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason for the police is to ensure that those in
power stay in power.

If you think the police are there to protect you, when you are just an average
person, you are in for a nasty surprise when you need protection. And if you become
the target of someone who has the power to influence the police, you are in for an even
nastier surprise.

Here's a hint for you on how things really are, and this is based on reality,
as opposed to fantasy :

when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Now go ahead, all you sheep, and mod my post down, even though it is
the truth whether your tiny little minds can grasp it or not.

Real Use

[Princeofcups]

Fleeing robbers? In the movies maybe, but how often does that happen in real life? No, this is just another way to track common folks that they want to spy on. There are about a 500 million of those in the US right now.

Jammin that GPS will be trivial...

[Lumpy]

You can already buy GPS jammers that work perfectly inside a car to jam GPS badly by splatting the band with noise. Some of the china cheapies splatter with enough noise and power to wipe out GPS for 100 feet around the car.

Re:Jammin that GPS will be trivial...

[Anonymous Coward]

What dipshit modded him down? It's the truth just search ebay.

Then just follow with drones.

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can then just have a drone lock on to the gps coordinates and follow (or destroy) the target.

Hide

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that Michael Knight has the perfect solution, from the suspect's point of view... drive into the metal truck trailer and hence defeat the GPS receiver and probably the transmitter as well. Now, just where is that confounded truck?

Oh, but imagine the combination of the two!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot with pics of beautiful women. It would almost be unfair to other blogs.

Genuis!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!
Genius!
What about all those helicpters they have?

Stupid...

Come on Google...

[tsprig]

Time to get that self-driving car to market!

Uhh...

[Patent Lover]

That's all super until he just ditches the car and just carjacks another. Brilliant!