[HN Gopher] NYPD Can Now Shoot GPS Trackers at Your Car
___________________________________________________________________
NYPD Can Now Shoot GPS Trackers at Your Car
Author : mhb
Score : 66 points
Date : 2023-04-17 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jalopnik.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (jalopnik.com)
| Imnimo wrote:
| I don't even understand what the proposed use case for this is.
| Is it supposed to be that you're in a car chase and rather than
| continue a dangerous pursuit you shoot this thing at the suspect
| and then just go find them later? Won't they notice and just stop
| and dispose of the tracker unless you're hot on their tail?
| V__ wrote:
| You could follow from a safe distance (or go parallel to the
| suspect) and track until air support is in place, or set up a
| few road blocks and box the suspect in. By the time you stop
| and remove the tracker, the police could just catch up and shot
| another pair of trackers.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Car chases have been banned in large cities because they often
| lead to injuries to bystanders and cops and then gigantic
| lawsuits. So yea the plan now is to find them later and I guess
| gpsing the car could help.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Exactly for making car chases less necessary. Just get in range
| to shoot, shoot and then track the fleeing car more safely from
| a distance.
| supernova87a wrote:
| Rather than worry about this little tracking peculiarity, my mind
| wanders to a future where the govt is smart/capable/evil enough
| to be connecting all the cameras in buildings, cars, etc. into
| one place that constantly monitors for license plates and is able
| to tell:
|
| -- anyone who has been driving around with a car registered in
| another state but hasn't relocated it to that state within a
| month (avoiding taxes -- CA I'm looking at you)
|
| -- backtracking where someone who committed a crime came from,
| and has gone
|
| -- etc.
|
| Maybe somewhere this is already being done.
| avidiax wrote:
| This is a thing already. Planes flying in circles above major
| US cities with dozens of cameras recording time lapses.
|
| The geolocation warrants being served against Google are also
| pretty similar. Come up with all the phones in the area when
| the fire was set, etc.
|
| https://radiolab.org/episodes/eye-sky
| m463 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| I think this is already the norm in Israel. Your every move is
| monitored on CCTV.
| Cardinal7167 wrote:
| It's already the norm in the US too. License plate readers
| have existed for like, a decade, and most cop cars I see in
| my state have them visibly mounted.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Doesn't need to be cop cars. Many tow truck companies have
| agreements to mount these sorts of cameras for the police.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Charles Strauss wrote about that in the atrocity archives.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| I think you mean Stross
| matthewaveryusa wrote:
| You mean Palantir?
| PeterCorless wrote:
| I am less concerned about the NYPD and other de jure police and
| sheriff departments having this, and more concerned when they get
| into the hands of civilians that are creepy men stalking ex-wives
| and underage women.
| celim307 wrote:
| Considering the history of effective oversight and regulation
| of local police, there's no difference between the two groups
| you described
| roarcher wrote:
| > > That projectile travels at a claimed 37 miles per hour, and
| has a straight-forward range of 35 feet -- though the company
| claims that, with an arc, it can theoretically reach 60 feet.
|
| This launcher doesn't seem very capable of hitting a moving
| vehicle, in spite of what their marketing might imply. It would
| be much easier and more covert to just use an Airtag, which
| stalkers already do.
| delfinom wrote:
| You can actually just buy GPS+Cellular trackers off Amazon
| already. And they are far far more discrete than this literal
| soup can sized tracker that the NYPD would be using.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| People aren't gonna buy weird, single-purpose, short-range
| tracker-launchers when they can just stick the tracker on the
| car when nobody's looking.
| ransackdev wrote:
| Sorry to be the one who brings you up to speed, but this is
| just adding one more option for both the gov and civilians to
| track people.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_Reveal
|
| As for randos tracking women, or anyone, this is already
| happening
|
| https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1080944193/apple-airtags-thef...
|
| https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/modified-airtags-us...
|
| and trackers are a dime a dozen it seems, complete with
| cellular data plans
|
| https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gps+tracker+for+vehicles
| [deleted]
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| Everything else aside, this is pretty sci-fi
| roarcher wrote:
| Prediction: the NYPD is never going to actually use this thing.
| Maybe some vastly improved future iteration, but not this one.
|
| > the NYPD has invested $19,500 on the Guardian-HX venture.
|
| That's pocket change to the NYPD. It's not clear from the article
| what "invested" means, but they probably bought and handed out a
| small number of launchers to a few officers to see if they prove
| useful. I'm skeptical that they will.
|
| > That projectile travels at a claimed 37 miles per hour, and has
| a straight-forward range of 35 feet -- though the company claims
| that, with an arc, it can theoretically reach 60 feet.
|
| Good luck hitting a moving vehicle with that.
| redeux wrote:
| I think you're probably right about them not actually using
| this but the implications of the capability are more
| interesting. There are potential privacy issues that could be
| troubling if not managed well, but it also has the potential to
| reduce the number of dangerous pursuits.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling
| if not managed well
|
| Under Supreme Court precedent, _United States v. Antoine
| Jones_ (2012) [0], attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is a
| search, and requires a warrant. A fancy delivery system
| doesn't seem to change the Constitutional parameters.
|
| [0] https://www.gps.gov/news/2012/01/supremecourt/#:~:text=10
| %2D....
| anfilt wrote:
| Police generally need a warrant to enter someones house too
| for the same reasons. However, if they chasing someone or
| there imminent danger they can enter someones house not
| search it, but it is only to deal with chasing the person
| or preventing the imminent threat.
|
| The only reason I see police deploying this would be to
| avoid a high speed chase. Where that ends up
| constitutionally I don't know not a judge or lawyer, but it
| is one of those imminent danger/pursuit situations the
| courts have carved for other circumstances.
|
| Now I will say if the police follow someone they are
| chasing into an other persons house and in that house see
| drugs. Under most circumstances that could not be used as
| evidence against the person that lived in the house since
| they did not have a warrant to search for drugs in the
| house. Their only legal reason to be there was to catch
| someone, so anything unrelated to that narrow purpose
| generally can't be used in court.
| roarcher wrote:
| > it also has the potential to reduce the number of dangerous
| pursuits.
|
| I agree that it does in concept, I just can't see them
| reliably tagging vehicles with a launcher as anemic as this
| one. The speed and range of the projectile is significantly
| less than an average healthy adult could achieve by throwing
| it.
|
| The only situation I can think of where it would _maybe_ work
| is at a DUI checkpoint. An officer could be standing next to
| the vehicle with the launcher, ready to fire as soon as it
| starts to move. Even then they 'd better be quick about it.
| tivert wrote:
| I don't know what percentage of car chases are of
| professional criminals, but reliance on GPS device like
| this to end a car chase might allow them to evade capture.
| GPS jammers are apparently cheap and easy to make, and
| someone who's stealing cars or robbing might be unconcerned
| with also comitting an FCC violation. If the cops shoot one
| one and hang back enough for the suspect to get out of
| sight, they could lose the person they're chasing once the
| jammer is enabled.
|
| https://hackaday.com/2020/09/08/teardown-mini-gps-jammer/
|
| https://greetwin.en.made-in-
| china.com/product/LFyTJkOHwCcd/C...
|
| Since these use adhesive, they might also be able to be
| defeated by a dirty vehicle.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| I wouldn't take it for granted that these actually use
| GPS at all, let alone exclusively (e.g. they might also
| use cell tower or BSSID triangulation). It's pretty
| common to use "GPS" generically for other methods of
| automated geopositioning.
| varenc wrote:
| I think "professionals" just avoid a car chases in the
| first place? My take is that most people trying to outrun
| the cops aren't going to be so highly technical and well
| prepared.
|
| (as a digression: GPS jamming might not be the best
| approach, but that depends on what the StarChase does. It
| would probably make more sense to jam its transmission
| capability, which presumably relies on cellular, rather
| than try to jam its GPS reception capability. If GPS is
| effectively blocked but the device can still transmit it
| could still attempt to locate you using cell towers or
| wifi BSSIDs.)
| tokai wrote:
| The should get a launcher in the hood of a squad car
| instead. In pursuit they can tag following and then peal
| off.
| Brybry wrote:
| For anyone not aware, this does actually exist. If you
| look on youtube there are a few examples of police using
| vehicle-mounted launchers in real chases. [1][2]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJTYQx5qMlc [Florida
| State Police/Highway Patrol]
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2H9A8kV-zA [Austin
| Police]
| roarcher wrote:
| Interesting, the devices in both those videos are made by
| the same company that makes the handheld launcher from
| the article.
| wisnoskij wrote:
| If NY is like some Toronto, I imagine traffic is so bad
| that vehicle chases dont really happen anywhere near the
| center/important parts of the city, which is why they are
| focusing on hand held devices.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _The only situation I can think of where it would maybe
| work is at a DUI checkpoint_
|
| We don't do those in America - you might catch someone
| actually important!
| majormajor wrote:
| You aren't going to the right party neighborhoods ;)
| autoexec wrote:
| I've seen them in the US (rarely). I think they just
| mostly just bury any record of it when someone important
| enough gets caught. More common are the checkpoints near
| the boarder where they stop people "just because"
| tivert wrote:
| > There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling
| if not managed well...
|
| Like what? This technique seems like it would be one of the
| least troubling, from a privacy perspective, since a tracking
| device that was shot at the exterior of your car will be one
| of the easiest to find and remove later. I'd be much more
| worried about tracking devices hidden under the car or in a
| wheel well.
| autoexec wrote:
| I agree that this is better than the police breaking into
| people's property and installing GPS without the owner
| being aware of it. I imagine a lot of problems with this
| new tech will be on the backend, with GPS or the software
| passing that data on to officers giving incorrect or
| imprecise location data leading to innocent people being
| harassed or killed.
|
| "Shoot at it" seems to be the default response to
| everything for police in the US, and I could see this
| causing innocent people, innocent people's vehicles, or
| other property being hurt or damaged by poorly aimed or
| entirely unnecessary shots.
| nomy99 wrote:
| Just last week it was reported that police showed up at the
| wrong house for a domestic violence incident and killed the
| (armed) homeowner. So I can see a lot of accidental takedowns
| with this tech.
|
| Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-
| police-wron...
| roarcher wrote:
| Jesus. These clowns figured out that they were at the wrong
| house before the guy opened the door, and they still shot
| him.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Good luck hitting a moving vehicle with that.
|
| It's not like police already doesn't care about accuracy when
| shooting at vehicles.
| [deleted]
| roarcher wrote:
| The only thing this seems likely to hit is the ground.
| potmat wrote:
| It might work if you can get one officer ahead of the vehicle,
| waiting for when it goes by, and shoot as it's coming toward
| you or passing close by. This should be pretty easy if the
| suspect is driving down, say, an interstate. Call ahead and
| have someone waiting for him to pass by.
|
| Edit: By "easy" I mean easy to call ahead, not necessarily to
| hit with the tracker.
| arealaccount wrote:
| Interesting this is built on an AR-15 lower receiver, with the
| detachable magazine being a battery.
|
| I'd think it would be a lot easier and cheaper to build one of
| these from the ground up instead of using a real not-electric
| firearm
| everforward wrote:
| AR-15 lowers are pretty cheap. Seems like ~$60 on the cheap end
| at consumer (non-wholesale) prices. That's without a buffer
| spring and stuff, but I don't think this thing even uses/needs
| those.
|
| There are some advantages to it, though. The article calls out
| accessories being interchangeable. The company doesn't have to
| make/sell different stocks and what not, people can just buy
| their existing favorites for the AR-15.
|
| The ergonomics are probably more familiar (e.g. adjusting the
| length of the stock, where the safety is, etc).
|
| You could also theoretically use the same lower for both this
| and an actual AR-15, although I doubt the utility of that. Most
| police departments probably have enough cash to just buy both.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Someone who doesn't understand economies of scale. You know how
| many ar-15 lowers are made every damn day in this country? They
| are cheaper than a dozen eggs at this point.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| If the government is investing in you they might have a lot of
| surplus gear you can use for a reduced cost. And it's
| attractive to tell police forces that they don't have to train
| marksmanship on a entirely new platform for your device.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| I mean, you can get 6packs of lower receivers as a civilian for
| like what amounts to 30 bucks each.
|
| They are not expensive.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Why? AR lowers are ludicrously cheap and common. You're going
| to need a generally "rifle-like" form factor for ease of use,
| so why not go with the most common design, and save money on
| things like pistol grips, buttstocks, etc?
|
| And the manual of arms is known to everyone who'll be using it.
| tyingq wrote:
| I imagine it's deliberate appeal to the demographic.
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| what if the tracker scratches/dents/damages your car? How does
| the GPS unit adhere? does that leave a residue? Are they going to
| pay for that??
| kube-system wrote:
| This is an alternative to the PIT maneuver or spike strips,
| which are all much more destructive. Generally speaking, police
| are legally permitted to use force to compel compliance.
| wisnoskij wrote:
| I think the problem is that it will likely be viewed as less
| destructive and used in cases where they would not have does
| a pit maneuver.
|
| Like a taser, in theory it is great to have a LESS lethal
| option than a gun, but if it is used in cases where they
| never would have used a gun, you might argue it was a net
| loss. Arguably, police should probably not use a taser if
| they do not feel threatened. But on the flipside if they feel
| threatened, they absolutely should be shooting them with real
| bullets, so the taser certainty has cost police officers
| their lives when they thought it would be a good enough
| deterrent and it turned out not to be.
|
| Also, you can only have so much gear.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Are they going to pay for that??
|
| No, when the cops damage your property, you're free to pay a
| lawyer to tell you that you'll lose in court.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| So true. Like the time the literally ripped my buddy's front
| door off it's hinges, and pointed a gun at his small child,
| only to find they were in the wrong apartment. Zero recourse,
| in what you'd think would be a slam dunk. At least the
| apartment complex didn't charge him for the damages.
| kotaKat wrote:
| I'm assuming if you're not actively trying to get pursued by a
| law enforcement official this isn't a problem.
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| horse shit! LEO can miss and hit someone elses car.
|
| Also, just because you are being pursued doesnt mean you are
| guilty of a crime.
|
| Cops can be creeps.
| officeplant wrote:
| If the tracker hits your car you'll probably be guilty of
| stealing[1] law enforcement property.
|
| [1]https://futurism.com/cops-charge-man-stealing-gps-
| tracker
| kube-system wrote:
| No, you wouldn't, because theft requires mens rea.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Keep in mind that this is the country where people have
| been charged with destruction of property for bleeding on
| police uniforms while being beaten.
| https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-
| cau...
| kube-system wrote:
| And those charges were dropped -- they weren't found
| guilty.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Anybody can be charged with anything. It does not mean
| they will be convicted.
| public_defender wrote:
| Good luck at your upcoming criminal jury trial.
| kube-system wrote:
| I guess I'll hire Heuring's lawyers instead of a public
| defender, because he was the intended target of his GPS
| tracker, and he ultimately beat the theft charges and the
| entire search warrant.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/removing-a-
| gps-t...
| harvey9 wrote:
| This is basically a NERF gun. In the vanishingly unlikely
| event that you need to, you can file a claim for damage to
| your vehicle.
| olyjohn wrote:
| It's not a bullet. It's a nerf dart and only flies about 35
| feet. If you are close enough to get hit by one of these,
| you're already in a fucking dangerous situation and should
| probably not just drive home like nothing happened. Also if
| they wanted to track you, they already can, and this really
| doesn't help them in any particular way. Hidden GPS devices
| have been around for years now.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| It's a problem for everyone because police make mistakes
| pretty frequently. All that it requires is them mistaking you
| for a suspect or following the wrong car, going to the wrong
| house, etc. Every technology should be considered in how it
| can be misused, instead of assuming everyone that uses it
| will be honest and infallible.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I might be wrong, but it's my impression people can get their
| doors kicked in and their computers seized, returned 6 months
| later with hard drives wiped. No recourse, or very slow and
| painful.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| And your money stolen without being returned
|
| https://www.npr.org/2023/03/24/1165822372/afroman-police-
| rai...
| oh_sigh wrote:
| For $20k they probably only got a few devices - possibly 1. What
| are the odds that the police officer with one of these few
| devices is the officer nearby when a pursuit happens? And they
| have a partner in their car ready to use the device? Effectively
| zero.
|
| I think this would be better implemented as a drone which could
| smash into the car and have the same tracking abilities. Then it
| could be launched by any officer even if they're not within 35
| feet of a car, perhaps steered autonomously or by an officer back
| at the precinct, or even dropped from a police helicopter.
| lagniappe wrote:
| No. It can't be. Someone is shadowing him. Right off his left
| flank. A person on a skateboard rolling down the highway right
| behind him. The Deliverator, in his distracted state, has allowed
| himself to get pooned. As in harpooned. There's a big round
| padded electromagnet, on the end of an arachnofiber cable. It has
| just thunked on the back of the Deliverator's car and stuck. Ten
| feet behind him, the owner of this cursed device is surfing,
| taking him for a ride. Skateboarding along like a water-skier
| behind a boat.
| jamesgreenleaf wrote:
| The Mechanical Hound slept but did not sleep, lived but did not
| live in its gently humming, gently vibrating, softly
| illuminated kennel back in a dark corner of the fire house. The
| dim light of one in the morning, the moonlight from the open
| sky framed through the great window, touched here and there on
| the brass and copper and the steel of the faintly trembling
| beast. Light flickered on bits of ruby glass and on sensitive
| capillary hairs in the nylon-brushed nostrils of the creature
| that quivered gently, its eight legs spidered under it on
| rubber padded paws.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-17 23:02 UTC)