Slashdot Mirror
Using Wearable Tech To Track Gun Use
An anonymous reader writes: A debate has been raging recently over whether or not to equip police with body cameras so that instances of violence in the line of duty can be monitored. It's an important discussion to have, but we should also look at other technologies that could help provide hard data on gun incidents. A new paper was recently published in PLOS ONE about the use of wristband accelerometers to detect when the wearer has fired a gun. Study author and criminology professor Charles Loeffler said, "A gunshot is pretty distinctive. You're typically at rest because you're trying to aim, and in a split second, your hand, wrist, and arm experience an impulsive transfer of energy." Loeffler suggests a suite of sensors including GPS and the wristband accelerometer could be given to convicts as a requirement for their parole. Not only would this help with police response in case of recidivism, but it could provide additional deterrent to further crimes. It could also be helpful to police departments, both for accountability and for integration between the police and the courts.
I feel there will be a lot of false positives. It will likely need good tuning. For example when you are using a hammer I suppose it's kind of related. First you relax somewhat when you aim the hammer and then it hits the nail.
Good idea though, especially if the vibration goes through the body so the sensor can be integrated with a normal ankle strip tracker.
To get a police visit every time you knock one out.
You cleverly conflated police abuse of powers with gun control measures. Anyone here work in PR?
That's OK for potheads and other non-violent criminals. But for someone who may have used a firearm in the commission of a crime, just keep them in. Please. For the good of society.
Have gnu, will travel.
Let's put accelerometer watches on cops to track when they fire shots. Then we can correlate that data (given a useful timecode) with the footage from the cameras that we also need to make them wear if we're going to ensure that they operate in the public interest. They've been telling us all along that if we have nothing to hide, we should not fear scrutiny. Well, them first.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It can't be just me that feels if a criminal on the streets is at risk of shooting a gun then they probably shouldn't be on the streets in the first place.
I know the libs wet their panties about gun crime and only gun crime to the exclusion of all other crime, but why do we only treat gun owners like they are a threat? More people were killed with someone's bare hands than the "scary black rifles" that the Democrats can't stop howling about.
I want a tracking a registration list of all the little thugs who didn't do nuffin someone with a knife, or their fists too. Shouldn't we fear those criminals even more? They meant it more.
Even if it does detect a gunshot, the police will have to find the person, get them checked for gunpowder reside, if no crime was committed is that going to be enough evidence to charge them? What if they are right handed and just use their left hand?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If ex-cons are suffering from recidivism you the public are doing it wrong.
Get to the gun range and get your grouping a little tighter and for God's sakes, even though they are more expensive these days, don't be stingy with those 100% effective anti-recidivism devices (aka bullets).
Why not just add a small camera attachment to the gun (i.e. on a picatinny rail where flashlights are commonly mounted) and have it automatically activate whenever the gun is held? Seems simple, cost effective, and would show exactly when and what is being aimed at and what was happening.
So they realize that Microphones are a lot cheaper than wrist bands and Guns tend to make a loud noise when used right?
Even stupid criminals can learn to shoot with their off hand.
.22 short (essentially recoiless) into the back of your head as you are if he blasts away with a 9mm.
Regardless, this strikes me as a horse-has-left-the-barn issue. "No jury in the world" is going to convict Joe Felon on a murder because of detected acceleration that feels like a gun. What's a gun feel like, anyway? You're just as dead if Billy Thug puts a
And here's my alibi, officer: I was at the gym and took a swing at a punching bag.
Something like this would have to be tuned to the anatomy of the wearer and the specifics of the weapon and shooting style used. And of course it doesn't even begin to address the thousands of people who are killed by recidivist gang members in beatings, stabbings, etc. Our local thugs prefer knives and machetes.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Just go with implants. Resistance is futile
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why not just count ammo distributed, or put a sensor in the holster to detect when it's drawn? Drawing it to threaten someone is also considered "gun violence" even if shots aren't fired.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
... for all cops.
Then we could do product placement.
Tasers, guns, radios ... help pay expenses and provide documentation for courts and some reality shows.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
All of this is vanity. We see more and more attempts to "scientifically" control human behavior, instead of setting humans up to succeed in the first place, by having simple, sane laws and what not. End the war on drugs, and you will radically improve relations between the police and the policed in a generation.
This may slow them down a bit, but they will learn how to trick it... they will learn to shoot off-hand; they will use lighter, lower velocity ammunition; they will drill ports in the top of the barrels; they will add weight to the front of the gun; they will learn to shoot with the gun inverted using the pinky to pull the trigger (I saw it in one of the Bourne movies so it's real)...
As a thought experiment, I've been pondering how we need to change our police and how we can with some of this technology. Wearables seem novel and like they could very easily be factored in as evidence in certain crime situations, it seems like it has to be after the fact though. More fundamentally, with cameras and the different recognitions and perhaps a few other sensors, I cannot imagine a case where we wouldn't be able to detect weapons in a crowd in a public space, maybe within the next 15 years.
Say for example you could, with a high degree of confidence, identify the absence of guns in a crowd or report that n people out of this crowd are most likely carrying weapons, you could instruct the police on how to engage them, whether or not they need to have lethal weapons or not. Likewise, maybe even as a service, you could be notified if there were too many weapons in your vicinity or something to that effect. That seems like a very interesting and increasingly possible service. Is concealed carry protected as a privacy? There will be some interesting problems, the militarized police will likely never want to relinquish their weapons, even if they knew there were engaging unarmed people, I have no idea what their excuse will be (other than weapons help them to present an image of power and authority) And I suspect that concealed carry folks will be upset of others around them know about it and react to it. There will be some interesting policy challenges and this stuff seems like it is almost certainly coming down the pipe.
Microphone will pick up *a* bang, and thus will give an information when *some* gun was fired in the vicinity of the police.
It could be any gun on the scene, might by the police worker's own gun just as it could be the gun of the suspect/criminal.
(Though if there are multiple police worker, with multiple microphone, maybe one could triangulate a probable point of origin for the shot)
This wrist bands pick up vibration, and thus will give an information when *the gun held in the hand wearing the wrist band* has recoiled (and thus fired).
It's the exact gun in the hand of the police worker, very few doubt about it.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
criminals won't wear them when committing a crime. Even embedding the devices into the body would not work reliably as anything that can be put in can also be taken out. I bet an EMP device could also be used to disable them without invasive surgery. What you'll end up with is a bunch of data on people who are not committing crimes, and a scant few pieces of data on the dumbest of the dumb who would fire a gun with one of these on.
A cop firing a gun is morally ambiguous. Sometimes its justified, sometimes it isn't.
Deciding when it is vs. isn't justified is the problem. Knowing that the gun was fired is usually pretty obvious.
Knowing the entirety of the situation when a cop fired is considerably more important than if the cop actually fired.
Pervasive, tamper proof cameras on officers and their vehicles, that police cannot withhold from the public without a pretty serious conversation with a judge. That's the starting point.
Let's see what problems remain after we've had that running for 5 years.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Tracker on my dominant hand (right)? Why can't I defeat the tracker by learning to shoot with my left?
Do I have to wear one on each wrist?
Because unlike the movies, guns have a kick and recoil and thus it is proper to brace with both hands.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
My aim is much better when I have a script saying I will hit something/someone.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I hope some day someone double taps you.
And this one throw-away comment turns (+1, Insightful) turns into (-1, Hypocrite).
Loeffler suggests a suite of sensors including GPS and the wristband accelerometer could be given to convicts as a requirement for their parole
Tagging a parolee to keep them within a certain area, or to make sure they don't stay out too late... not such a bad idea. Worried they might go around shooting guns? Maybe don't let them out yet.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Proper? Yes. Always gonna happen? No. In fact, the IDPA qualifier requires you to shoot one handed for a few strings, and with each hand at that.
(((dB)))
But he would at least have a chance of surviving, instead of the "bend over and take it" approach (which, by the way, doesn't always mean your assailant will just take your wallet and go away).
(((dB)))
Pretty much anything that involves catching a ball would set it off as easily as shooting a gun. This really sounds like a solution (smart watch) in search of a problem.
M60? Dang, that's some fast fapping.
(((dB)))
Fit the microphones with accelerometers, fit accelerometers with cell phones, fit the cell phones with guns, and fit guns with police. Everyone's a winner.
So they realize that Microphones are a lot cheaper than wrist bands and Guns tend to make a loud noise when used right?
Indeed - but also add driverless cars into the tech mix and suddenly 90% of grievances against the police probably disappear!
... or chronic masturbators.
That will be broken when it comes time to check.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
1x 9mm 124 grain hollow point $.27
1x 6ft deep hole in the ground $200
vs
5 year minimum sentence in Federal prison for violent offender $150,000
If you can't see the money incentive distortion that creates in the market place then you are pretty much an idiot.
Accelerometers on parolee's wrists?
Sounds like - depending on how sadistic their parole officer is - it would at least force them to masturbate with the other hand.
-Styopa
If one is working with Hammer and Anvil then one would probably have similar accelerometer readings. One can NOT be told not to do one's job, nor told not to use hammer and anvil.
When someone is paroled, they've served their sentence for whatever it is that they did. They shouldn't then be shackled to some bracelet that persistently assumes they are guilty until proven innocent. The police will get tired of checking in on parolees who were rear-ended while sitting at a stoplight, because their snoopy bracelet tried to broadcast that they used a gun.
Unless it's recognized that all your personally owned sensors cannot be used against you in court you have to realize that the laws you violate routinely are now being recorded by your electronic minions for anyone with a faked warrant or excuse to peruse. In the morning after your drunken spy-gadget buying frenzy, enjoy the perp-walk of shame to your personal gitmo.
The flip side of that is that the bad guy won't feel compelled to take him down ASAP. A gun can be very useful for self-defense, but it makes it much more important for the bad guy to take you down hard and fast. Never draw one in a confrontation without being completely prepared to kill somebody.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes