Slashdot Mirror
US Police Consider Flying Drones Armed With Stun Guns (digitaltrends.com)
Slashdot reader Presto Vivace tipped us off to news reports that U.S. police officials are considering the use of flying drones to taser their suspects. From Digital Trends:
Talks have recently taken place between police officials and Taser International, a company that makes stun guns and body cameras for use by law enforcement, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. While no decision has yet been made on whether to strap stun guns to remotely controlled quadcopters, Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said his team were discussing the idea with officials as part of broader talks about "various future concepts."
Tuttle told the Journal that such technology could be deployed in "high-risk scenarios such as terrorist barricades" to incapacitate the suspect rather than kill them outright... However, critics are likely to fear that such a plan would ultimately lead to the police loading up drones with guns and other weapons. Portland police department's Pete Simpson told the Journal that while a Taser drone could be useful in some circumstances, getting the public "to accept an unmanned vehicle that's got some sort of weapon on it might be a hurdle to overcome."
The article points out that there's already a police force in India with flying drones equipped with pepper spray.
Tuttle told the Journal that such technology could be deployed in "high-risk scenarios such as terrorist barricades" to incapacitate the suspect rather than kill them outright... However, critics are likely to fear that such a plan would ultimately lead to the police loading up drones with guns and other weapons. Portland police department's Pete Simpson told the Journal that while a Taser drone could be useful in some circumstances, getting the public "to accept an unmanned vehicle that's got some sort of weapon on it might be a hurdle to overcome."
The article points out that there's already a police force in India with flying drones equipped with pepper spray.
of law enforcement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Then moves to gun.
Controlled much?
Nice False Dichotomy you found there lying on the ground. Should we report it to the police? The same police that have been shown to -regularly- use excessive force when they know they aren't being filmed... ??
Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?
Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?
I guess you're not a minority (neither am I), don't live in one of those types of neighborhoods (neither do I), and don't care about the plight of your brothers and sisters. (I do).
And about 'why' it is a false dichotomy... because there is obviously a middle ground between giving the police 'new toys' and giving them pillows.
Hard on criminals is not necessarily hard on crime. More to the point it's not when cops shoot criminals, it's when cops shoot alleged criminals.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
How encrypted is that link?
How much computer power in a parked van with carefully designed antennas is needed to build up a picture of the command and control link in a suburban setting per device?
It really, really frequency hops and has super encryption?
After that all that a device that sends a default return code or induces an error to make the drone stop and return.
A bit like whats done to mil grade drones but as a production line in a city.
A race to offer counter measures to the inner city and secure the drones again, more upgrades per drone.
Up sell the police on new electronic warfare equipment to protect their drone? To track any passive collection attempts when the drone is in use?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I was told that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. Now you're telling me there's other ways to stop them?
Maybe we should give the police pillows.
Why not? They already have the comfy chair
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If these drones can accurately stun someone, why not make them autonomous, feed their video to an AI familiar with the law and then stun anyone who breaks a law? Oh, wait, because that's pure fucking insanity. But, it's also the direction we are rapidly heading. It will start with drones as backup/expendable less-than-lethal devices and progress pretty quickly to autonomous law enforcement drones. I keep hearing that the average person breaks the law several times a day so, it should make for a really exciting society!
Been predicting this for some time along with others. This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.
Not really a revelation, more of an inevitability. And certainly not a conspiracy theory - governments worldwide are already discussing this future openly...and assumedly otherwise.
The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys" (i.e. not them) until it is too late as per usual.
The problem is that rather than filling the non-lethal role they were originally intended for, these things often instead end up being misused. Tasers for example were initially introduced for use where lethal force would have otherwise been used. What happens then is that you get mission creep and before you know it, even unarmed passively-resisting protestors are viewed as fair-game. Taser-armed drones are likely to be no-exception.
only fair if the coast guard gets sharks with lasers.
ôó
Last time I checked FAA rules it was illegal to fire projectiles from aircraft. Military excepted.
As predicted by Larry Niven in 1972 short story, Cloak of Anarchy.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/...
Someone at police headquarters had expected that. Twice the usual number of copseyes floated overhead, waiting. Gold dots against blue, basketball-sized, twelve feet up. Each a television eye and a sonic stunner, each a hookup to police headquarters, they were there to enforce the law of the Park...
Within King's Free Park was an orderly approximation of anarchy. People were searched at the entrances. There were no weapons inside. The copseyes, floating overhead and out of reach were the next best thing to no law at all.
http://www.larryniven.net/stor...
I understand, but I think the risk is that it becomes too easy to use these non-lethal (but very painful) devices when the police are not in any real danger. They could become the quick solution to too many problems. Eventually they might also have lethal weapons.
I think that one of the keys to reducing police brutality is a better connection to the people that they are supposed to be serving, and I think drones weaken that connection.
Why do they have to use flying drones? Flying drones generate so much noise as it approaches the criminal. They can be easily discovered, and destroyed.
Would you like the police to turn a blind eye to the crimes? Look at what happened in Baltimore when police stopped patrolling.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but perhaps rather than the either/or scenario, we could go back to first principles.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Yeah, they'll be used for barricaded hostages and terrorists and such. Just like SWAT teams.
Do you have ESP?
to track runaway vehicles instead of chasing them.
Meh. Welcome to yesterday. Dallas police have already used a robot with a pound of C-4 to blow up a sniper in July 2016. This ain't no cheesy science Fiction.... http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.
The robot didn't do anything. The police controlling the robot used it to deal with the guy remotely so they didn't have to lose any more lives approaching a guy who was promising to do more killing. How is that a single bit different than shooting him from 500 yards away? It's not. Not a bit.
The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys"
Why should someone apologize for telling the truth? If it was your job to deal with an armed, violent person, and you were handed a tool that allows you to do that with less of a chance of you being killed while doing your job, are you really saying you wouldn't use that tool? Let me guess, you think it's unfair for the police to wear body armor, right? Yeah. Right.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Automated "peacekeeper" drones are like the most iconic representation you can get for scifi/cyber distopia. They're the poster boy, easily.
So if you want us feeling (even more) like everything is turning into 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc. by all means carry on.
Drone have no life on their own to be endangered. Therefore they will never have any occasion to use them, so why bother arming drones.
If they are intended to be use in non-life threatening situation, then it's torture. Torture drone. Great.
Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force? Hyperbole much? An occupying force? That's where you're going? Have you ever been under occupation? Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.
I can see where people get confused when they see images like this one or this one or this one from Ferguson.
I dunno, about the rest of you guys but I'm looking forward to the police force giving away pricey new drones when they start using these for everyday policing. :)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I expect to see criminals starting to wear chain mail. I'm sure modern techniques could make it quite light and easy to use, especially since it doesn't need to stop bullets or blades. All it needs to do is prevent the taser darts from penetrating so deeply that the chain mail can no longer short them out. Then most of the taser current should pass through the armour instead of the victim's flesh. I suspect victims might feel some pain, and perhaps even a lot of pain, because of the imperfect electrical connections between links in the mail; but I think enough current would be diverted around nerves and muscles to prevent the truly debilitating effects normally associated with electroshock weapons.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Whatever soldiers use in the middle east will be used against American citizens by cops. That's what happens in a Security State.
To serve and protect doesn't mean what you think it does. Since the formation of the first police force its goal was to protect the law and serve those in power.
Police protects the community as a whole, not the individual citizen. And the only way to protect the community is to uphold the law. Of course the law says what those in power want to say so...
Don't Kid yourself, this is for riot kontrol.
So, you can't see the parallel? I'm guessing the 'stop and frisk' in New York didn't qualify because enough suspects weren't pistol whipped. Or, because the recent John Doe warrant for fingerprints and mobile phones didn't include SWAT teams. They're an occupying force, when 'the people' no longer have any power over them; when they are not accountable for their actions. That tends to happen frequently in the USA: A country that objected to be ruled without a corresponding power (elections) over their rulers.
Taser armed drones are actually less worrying to me than the fellow they killed with the robot bomb. In the latter case, killing a suspect is justified when the police are under deadly threat. Arguably, if the sniper is contained and they can take their time jerry rigging a drone bomb, they could also take their time to come up with something that doesn't circumvent due process. I don't know enough details about that situation to say they weren't justified, but it is easy to see how the implications are a little troubling. However, if they had been able to taser that fellow with drones then he'd have been able to stand trial.
Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.
Not every occupier runs a Naziesque genocidal regime. Why don't you look at the American occupation of Iraq instead? We instituted curfews, and desegregated populations that were living next to one another in relative peace, causing them to come into conflict and fomenting terrorism. That's pretty close to what American occupation of America is like, except instead of desegregating a segregated populace, our laws seek to segregate it further by demonizing and subsequently ghettoizing some races.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's all I got, I don'tknow what else to say.
Don't you think that the cops are just friggen weird. It's just one budget busting whack job idea after another. There is too much policing in this country. Rolling them back hard and fast. Enough of this nonsense.
After seeing this and reading the related links, it is clearly time for an xrobocop tag.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
they could have put anything on the robot.
they chose to use a bomb, instead of CS (tear) gas or any of a number of other options that would have ended the situation without further loss of life.
by that logic of yours, we should replace all police with robots as in Elysium or any of a number of other scifi stories.
why risk anyone's lives? lets just use robots to decide everyone's fate and enforce the laws.
the reason is because putting humans in the mix, putting them at risk, is part of the safeguard against abuse of power.
your logic is the logic that justifies saving police lives at the cost of all others.
being a police officer is dangerous, though not in the top 10. and it should be. it is by nature a risky profession. some days you interact with normal everyday citizens who just went a lil too fast. others you interact with actual dangerous criminals. that's the nature of the job when it comes to enforcing the law in relation to the nations citizens...all of them, normal or dangerous.
there are far too many police who think they're supposed to be warriors.
THEY ARE NOT.
that flawed mindset largely comes from ex-military who transitioned but forgot they aren't at war with America's citizens.
I've actually been told by various officers that the view of them as guardians is dangerous and emperils theyre safety.
that is garbage.
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
and part of being a guardian of the public is protecting ALL OF THE PUBLIC, including the dangerous ones, to the best of your ability.
and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
firstly, they are suspects, not criminals.
a criminal has been convicted of a crime.
secondly, they do not cease to be citizens, they do not lose their rights, upon being deemed a suspect.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Indeed, a drone cannot be "killed" only disabled, so cannot use an excuse of protecting itself for the argument for lethal force. Hopefully, you'll have fewer cops panicing that they're about to be in danger and so killing someone who is holding a water pistol, or a wallet, or a book.
Arming a drone with a stun gun is far favourable to a cop with gun, This is potentially a good thing. There has to be strict laws in place at a federal level now though, that prevents the police being able to put anything more deadly that a stun gun on one of these things.
Stun Guns, I'm ok with that, but let's not let this escalate anymore.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
several counties out in bumphuck Oklahoma have MRAPS now.
and the boonies of Oklahoma aren't the only place this is happening.
MRAPS.
Mine Resistant Armored Personnel Carriers.
like we used in Iraq to protect from IEDs.
why do counties with a population of 5,000 people and 300,000 cows need MRAPS, let alone SWAT teams?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Female cops and female bandits both to be supplied with pillows. To clash in college dorms.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Actually, that's a great idea. (the pepper spray not the peaceful protestors or non-white part).
Pepper spray is far less likely to be accidentally lethal than stun guns or rubber bullets. Someone controlling a drone is far less likely to shoot in the first place because they're less likely to panic, or feel threatened.
A drone has a camera on it at all times. Make it required that the video footage is available for independent bodies to review for abuse, and pass federal laws denying police the rights to put anything more lethal on a drone. I think pepper spray drones could be a great way to lessen police violence and killings.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Is it time to discuss 3 Laws Safe?
Yeah, with mistrust of police at an all time high, weaponinzed drones in the cops' hands, how could that go wrong?
"and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one."
But then how else can I legally bully people?
oh irony
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
for those who don't click the link:
The nine principles were as follows:
1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
How effective can it be when you can take it out with a stick or a rock?
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when something starts), then they become warriors if the circumstances require that. Which is why they carry weapons.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
So, you'd be in favor of cops not being allowed to wear body armor. Because, after all, the job is risky, and it's not fair to give them any sort of advantage that might save their lives while they're acting on your behalf and dealing with someone who wants to kill them.
Your absurd false dichotomy (the police must either allow themselves to be killed, or they are baby killers) shows that you are either pretending to have given this no actual thought, or you really can't muster the critical thinking skills to think this through. Here's an idea: go, right now, today, and ask your local city/county cops about their ride-along program. Do it for a week or two, in a rough urban area. Report back.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Partly because of the paralysis and partly because of the sellout in Congress, laws governing the use of technology in law enforcement have fallen way behind. My knee-jerk reaction is to say "no weaponized UAVs within our borders", but that's just not realistic. LE won't just standby while bad guys weaponize theirs, nor should they. But so far we haven't even gotten control of handheld Tasers. Instead of being used in place of deadly force, they're being used in place of physical restraint or even passive noncompliance, as if they never result in injury or death, which they most certainly occasionally do. I'd say a starting point would be to create federal legislation specifying when Tasers can be used, and it should be pretty restrictive. Then that can be extended to included remote-controlled vehicles. Will such laws preclude the unwanted use of weapons on drones? Of course not. But those doing so may be caught, fired, and prosecuted.
I can guarantee you, taser drones will not be used on "terrorist barricades". Mainly because there aren't terrorist barricades, but also because cops would rather risk other people's lives with a usually-not-lethal weapon rather than talk to a usually-not-dangerous suspect. Oh, were you under the impression that tasers don't kill?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Sadists, sadists would like that, like anyone would taser someone while they are already down.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Screw ED209, just equip the drone with a submachine gun! Already been done and demonstrated by our friends over at FPSRussia... ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Drones with stun guns as apposed to cutting down doughnut intake a spend a few weekends a month at the gym.
Become a politician.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
said someone who is wiser than you
Well, what's your alternative? Send more human cops in so they can get shot dead by a terrorist who's heavily armed? Sending in a robot with a bomb was a bit extreme, but under those circumstances, it was warranted. If they had had a flying Taser drone, that would have been preferable (maybe, depending on your POV), as it's less-than-lethal and most likely would have incapacitated the shooter instead of killing him.
For extreme situations, I don't see what the problem is here, and a flying Taser makes perfect sense as something to have for such cases. Police have had special weapons for a long, long time: SWAT teams ("SW" is for "special weapons") have been around since the early 1980s, and they're normally only brought out in extreme cases. The fact that they've been overused in recent years in some localities is a failure of governance, but the answer isn't to take all the guns away from all police because then you'll have really serious criminality problems and no police at all; the answer is to get some better politicians, namely at the local levels where they have direct oversight over police departments.
That's a stupid argument. The police do not have nuclear weapons.
If you had said something about private citizens having MRAPs and grenade launchers, you'd have a point.
Much prefer someone fly their drone in, than run into a building shooting, or getting shot.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Local government can barely patrol in automobiles without fucking up their gear. Federal government can't even properly deploy a website. We see our overseers ass up project after project, while ever eyeing more expensive projects and tech.
This will be a colossal fuck up. Politicians and police are expecting turnkey aircraft. That just aint how its going to go. Aircraft in general is pretty onerous to maintain, autonomous stuff even more-so. Shit goes wrong all the time. I bet they wind up keeping a ton of overpriced plastic shapes on hand as replacement parts, and I bet they will be to afraid of breaking it to even change a prop.
You're not ready to fly after a 10 minute power-point presentation, but you can bet your freedoms that's how they will try to roll. Good thing our police departments are known for such intelligent staff.....
Imagine the circus when the first drone is caught on camera tazing some dunk and disorderly college kid? Or the video of the one crashing into the historic monument? Or the inevitable hacking?
Enjoy the show folks.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
And I'm considering anti drone and anti police state countermeasures
Exactliy. If they want the a UAV weapon then they'll find the citizens have them too no matter what FAA may say.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Hover Drone
Tasers can and do kill. If you have certain types of medical problems, they're more likely to kill. They should never be considered non-lethal. They're considerably less lethal than the officer's sidearm, but should never be used unless lethal force is justified.
Also, there are lots of cases of police officers using tasers too freely.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, when I think of point 9, I think of those terror plots which were created by the FBI, or USBP interior checkpoints, or the police buying military surplus gear.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Oh, the other thing with point 3 is community policing.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Watchbird by Robert Sheckley: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebook... these are autonomous and finally capable of killing. But, everything proceeds via a frog-boiling process, step by step.
I'm a 65 year old Brit and the rot seemed to start when the police were removed from the street (and stuck into Q-cars) because it was 'more efficient'. A person in a remote control room does not have the local knowledge to know that the 'threat' is someone is eccentric but harmless and has a heart problem. Result is judicial manslaughter.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
Or the UK where cops shoot people they've mistaken for alleged criminals.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
So if you're a criminal, you could wear some chainmail to short out the taser!
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
no, that's bulls***, and you damn well know it.
the only person who has brought up opposing cops having body armor is YOU .
you cannot make a rational argument based on telling others what they think, on putting words in their mouths.
also, its neither a false dichotomy, nor do I think (nor did I suggest) that police must allow themselves to be killed.
that is not what I said, but your illequipped brain is apparently incapable of proper reading comprehension, so do not even try to pretend to think that between us you are the intellectual. all evidence points otherwise.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
(ill repost as many times as it takes to get around your sock puppets.)
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
"it is far better than 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished."
Or adapted to this situation: it is better that the police be injured, than those same overly militarized police burn holes in the chests of babies in their cribs, deaf and/or non-english speaking grandmothers be shot, or the mentally ill / suicidal be killed when their family called the police to stop precisely that.
also: nice racist dog whistles.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
again: NO ONE has said, or implied, the words you are trying to put in their mouths. .
stop trying to tell others what they think, and read what they have actually said, using what little reading comprehension skill you have.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If drones have Facial recognition software they'll become ultimate killing machines; wh.gov/iyhMK
Casteism
It was hardly the first time police deployed a bomb but at least they didn't burn down a few blocks of housing in Dallas. And of course that was not the first or last time the FBI was involved in such an operation.
I suspect the Dallas police were so enraged that they just looked for the most creative way to execute the guy and had no intention of capturing him alive.