Slashdot Mirror
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."
Not slashdot's fault... This is news from around 2009!
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-7000/first-gps-projectile-tracking-device/
I had a sucky sig.
ghost in the shell invented it first
Well, we might find Scorpio's lair finally!
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
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.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Really. Slashdot.
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.
#DeleteChrome
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.)
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If this becomes popular, then so will GPS jammers for any who expect a need to make a getaway.
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.
"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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
What about the 60s TV show Batman and his Bat Tracer?
:P :D
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.
Don't forget the past, otherwise it will p0wn you ya n00b !
(Trust me, nobody wants to get teabagged by grandpa.)
If you drive away with the tracker attached to your car, can the cops charge you with stealing it?
sustainable living
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.
This is why I keep the back of my car coated in vaseline. Checkmate, Johnny Law!
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.
which is totally what she said
BWhahahahahaa....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
subject sais it all :)
Be or ben't
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...
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
People never see bias, if they agree with the bias.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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"
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.
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*.
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.
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!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Back off doesn't mean let the guy get away and your scenario sounds pretty ludicrous.
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.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
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".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
Yeah, that and every other fact about the article which he got entirely wrong.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
And, you're not going to outrun the cops radio no matter how fast your crotch-rocket is.
Just another day in Paradise
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!
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.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
That's all super until he just ditches the car and just carjacks another. Brilliant!
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.
"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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
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.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Oh, sorry, did I intrude reality into your fantasy?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"