[HN Gopher] NYPD will deploy drones to respond to 911 calls in 5...
___________________________________________________________________
NYPD will deploy drones to respond to 911 calls in 5 NYC precincts:
officials
Author : pseudolus
Score : 56 points
Date : 2024-05-17 13:17 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gothamist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gothamist.com)
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| By 2027, the NYPD drone program will be repurposed to checking
| for unauthorized grills, having failed at being a "first
| responder" to real crime.
|
| What is a drone supposed to do? Take a witness statement? Run
| into someone who is stealing something? A big part of the
| deterrent of the police is that threat of violence. A drone
| telling you "your crime has been recorded now wait for us to
| arrest you" will work for a few days on the intimidation factor.
| sambull wrote:
| Is that some sort of zoning thing in NYC? I know a county
| around me is already using drones to check for
| structures/additions that aren't listed for tax purposes.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Due to the dense packing of people in NYC, there are very few
| places that allow you to have any kind of open flame,
| including in a barbecue or grill. I think the requirement is
| that your grill has to be at least 10 feet from any flammable
| material, including building walls, other furniture, and
| pretty much anything not made of concrete or metal. You can't
| do it on a terrace or a balcony either. Almost nowhere in NYC
| do you have a 10 foot radius with nothing flammable in it.
| mattzito wrote:
| This is inaccurate-
|
| - charcoal - no roofs or balconies, but terraces and
| backyards are okay. You do need 10 feet of clearance from
| walls and fences, but this is less rare than you might
| think. I've lived in two places that met this criteria and
| have a few friends that did as well
|
| - propane - illegal in most circumstances except with a
| very small propane tank
|
| - natural gas - legal in all circumstances as long as
| installed by a city licensed installer.
|
| It's true that it's not as common as it is in the suburbs,
| but essentially every building built in the last 20 years
| or major renovations ends up including one or more grills.
| tekla wrote:
| Completely incorrect. I've lived on the UWS at 72nd st and
| ran a smoker and charcoal grill AND a outdoors fireplace in
| our backyard.
|
| You have no idea what you are talking about.
|
| I wasn't trying to hide it either, I ran some (3x) 18 hour
| brisket smokes with hickory in 2018.
| nothercastle wrote:
| They will drone strike you for using a gas weed wacker and
| letting your kids play in the front yard unsupervised.
|
| When the criminals steal your car/bike/phone they will do
| nothing.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Bingo!
|
| I do love the very imaginative scenarios posted to this
| thread. Drones and chasing dangerous suspects! Drones
| gathering evidence and filming the crime scene! These are
| great. In reality, the police are always going to favor
| enforcing things with high revenue/effort ratios, which don't
| put their own skins at risk. Essentially, milking non-violent
| people who can be fined for something and are likely to pay
| the fine, while ignoring violent people and thieves. If
| someone was getting robbed in front of me and I was standing
| there filming it, cops would probably ignore the robbery and
| go after me for "interfering with an investigation" or
| something.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Obstruction and then they would step on your foot and claim
| you touched them and add a charge for battery on a police
| officer.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| unfortunately, completely agree.. here in the US West Coast
| in a high crime urban area.. seemingly half the adult
| population are involved in stupid, confrontational, selfish
| and haphazardly illegal actions every day of the year. Then a
| uniformed duo rolls up, no one will talk to them. The
| boundary line between "thats my important-thing-I-want" and
| "where is my sh*" is impossible to determine between
| argumentative and low-language skill adults.. meaning your
| car, bike or phone (as noted above). Secondly, small-time
| people discover that they can call law enforcement on people
| they don't like, and law enforcement figures this out due to
| years of experience and responds with no-responding.
|
| Meanwhile, a legal, certified and identifiable citizen with
| stable contact info, decide to have a wood fire. The
| politically conscious local city council has decided that due
| to air quality, it costs FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS for a ticket
| for a wood fire. Tickets cost pennies to issue.. bingo -
| revenue source. Repeat as desired.. there is a lot of desire.
|
| More than half of cities in this part of the country went
| bankrupt due to drastically reduced local sales tax. Their
| primary financial liabilities are uniformed services, mainly
| police and fire.. If the uniforms can make their own money,
| saves some ugly confrontations from the union at election
| time! more anecdotes possible..
|
| There is one hundred percent chance that the outcome
| described above is happening with new drone remote services
| IMHO
| ncr100 wrote:
| Seriously.
|
| This is a new way to harass. And it is illegal ("gross
| misdemeanor" in WA, at the minimum) to do so.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _What is a drone supposed to do?_
|
| A drone is cheaper than a helicopter when it comes to following
| a potential suspect on the run.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| A whack with a baseball bat, a slammed door, or even a good
| punch will take out the drone, though. I suspect that you're
| right and the intent is to be able to pursue people who are
| on foot with a helicopter-like device.
| andy99 wrote:
| They'll realize that weakness eventually and replace them
| with spider like robots that are more mobile and harder to
| take down.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| I guess teaching drone operators proper pursuit tactics is
| impossible?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| What is the penalty in new york for using a baseball bat to
| disable a police car?
| kcb wrote:
| Or they could just fly like a few feet higher than the
| person...
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Not in a hallway, which is exactly where someone will run
| when being chased by a drone.
| coldtea wrote:
| Yeah, good luck with that
| uncletammy wrote:
| Maybe in the short run but I think you underestimate
| surveillance tech firms' ability to extract revenue from
| governments.
|
| If this technology proves even a little bit useful, I expect
| that ten years from now, cities will be spending double digit
| percentages of their police department budget on per-unit
| subscription fees for these drones.
|
| The political and economic incentives for this type of
| technology are strong in a state without surveillance
| oversight.
|
| Especially if there's additional revenue potential for the
| city ( think traffic enforcement and license plate readers)
|
| Next we'll be seeing ai powered antisocial behavior
| monitoring as a service for live events. I simply cannot wait
| /s
| melling wrote:
| Wow. A complete lack of imagination. Try again.
|
| I'd love to spend my day debating it, but I've been through
| this story before.
| lostemptations5 wrote:
| How so? How are drones supposed to arrest people?
| gregorymichael wrote:
| same way the NYPD helicopter pilots do now.
| melling wrote:
| No one said they would. Instead of using selection bias to
| explain all the things they can't do, try imagining what
| they can do.
| philipov wrote:
| My secret undercover contacts in the NYPD have provided me with
| advance footage of the new drones that will be deployed
| throughout the city, demonstrating their innovative scanning
| technology - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtnHPNlzCz8
| nlh wrote:
| I know you're semi-trolling (and I kinda agree they will
| definitely eventually use these for things that are "illegal"
| like grills and speed checks, etc.)
|
| BUT: Let's think of the positives here. If a 911 call comes in
| and it will take 5-8 mins to get an officer on the scene but 90
| seconds to get a drone there to see what's happening, is that
| really a bad idea? I think the plan isn't to stop using
| officers - it's to get a drone on scene so the officers are
| better prepared when they arrive.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Do you understand the current differential between NYPD
| capability and action taken? You need to understand that NYPD
| and cops in general aren't primarily challenged in their
| service by their means to execute on it (though you can also
| find measures suggesting so, and thus needing more funding
| and powers)
|
| For ex they put a load of cops in the subway system, at huge
| cost, and the results were roughly the same level of crime
| given overall crime rates falling (and falling just
| slightly), with no evidence available of increased presence
| preventing crime, seemingly no impact, except for catching
| more fare evasion (recouping single digit percent of cost of
| the program). It was celebrated in gov and by the police as a
| success and they're continuing their program. They use the
| program to divert a proliferation of these fare evasion cops
| stationed all over the city to other things like emergent
| protest suppression outside the subways.
|
| To talk about "zero second" extreme case police response
| capabilities.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| How is this related to their comment? A drone that can
| start recording crucial evidence before police arrive could
| absolutely be a deciding factor in having enough evidence
| to charge or convict someone.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| It's a case study of what (nypd) police are capable of
| and achieve when they have zero second response time and
| surveillance capabilities
|
| And what the public understands the cost to go toward and
| why versus what the resulting day to day and bigger
| picture actions are as a result of the greater numbers
| and powers gained over the public
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| My point in the GP comment is that "recording crucial
| evidence" does very little to actually stop or prevent
| crime. It might help after the fact if not for all the
| policies around releasing serial criminals and not
| prosecuting "minor" crimes.
|
| In practice, though, the police generally show up after
| the crime has happened and take statements. In some
| places outside of NYC, they actually use that information
| to catch people and prosecute them. In NYC it goes into a
| black hole.
|
| I am sure the idea they had when they bought these things
| is the drone carrying a speaker and saying "Police, drop
| the gun," and the armed suspect will magically drop the
| gun, but we all know that's not going to happen.
|
| The use I can see is chasing people who run on foot, but
| there are a lot of problems with that. They can just go
| into a building to escape, run around a couple of
| corners, or even just stand there until the real cops
| arrive and continue to evade arrest the old fashioned
| way.
| Borealid wrote:
| Unfortunately, you can't prove the program did not work.
|
| If I purchase a can of alligator repellent spray, and after
| using it I am attacked by one alligator, that isn't proof
| the spray failed. If I were to have failed to use the
| spray, it's possible I would have been attacked by FOUR
| alligators.
|
| In other words, absent an experiment with a control you
| can't draw conclusions about the success or failure of a
| dissuasionary program because you don't know how many
| things were dissuaded.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| You're welcome to look up the program and the evaluations
| of its success that don't come from police and ex-police
| govt sources and see for yourself. Your impossible
| standard is useless for evaluating police investment
| Borealid wrote:
| I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy in saying
| "crime rates did not decline faster than elsewhere,
| therefore the investment was unsuccessful".
|
| That observation, alone, doesn't prove anything about the
| impact had by the program.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| those weren't my words. anyway I added additional
| clarification to appease
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The only things stopping the NYPD from sending an officer to
| any location in the city within ~90 seconds are their own
| cowardice and laziness.
|
| The NYPD has an incredible level of capability to do things.
| They just don't think your life (or your stuff) is worth
| using it.
|
| Also, the NYPD's average response time is now over 15
| minutes.
| psychlops wrote:
| You mean potential positives. It's not difficult to imagine
| police doing all sorts of amazing things. But the reality of
| costs and safety keeps those ideas in fantasy land.
|
| In your example, costs and safety would mandate that the 90
| seconds would first be spent determining whether an officer
| is needed then an additional 5-8 minutes will be needed to
| respond. There will be fewer beat officers as they will need
| to hire a crew of drone operators.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| New police tech always follows a pattern. They say it is to
| improve existing proceedures, to make them
| faster/safer/better, but in the end the tech breaks free of
| old paradigms and gets used in the "bad" ways everyone
| predicted. Tasers were meant to be used only instead of guns,
| but now are used on non-threatening people who simply refuse
| orders. Speed/traffic cameras were to free up officers for
| other tasks, but cops do as much traffic enforcement as ever
| before. The cameras are used by companies for revenue. Drones
| are pitched as being the faster responce, going ahead of
| officers on foot. In a few years they will be the only
| response. They will be hovering outside our bedroom windows
| scouting for wrongdoing.
|
| It is the tech cops dont want, the stuff we must force upon
| them such as dash/body cameras, that tends to promote the
| public good in the long run.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| > They say it is to improve existing proceedures, to make
| them faster/safer/better, but in the end the tech breaks
| free of old paradigms and gets used in the "bad" ways
| everyone predicted.
|
| This new technology will improve existing procedures. How
| can you oppose it?
|
| This new procedure will use existing technologies. How can
| you oppose it?
| chrisandchris wrote:
| But shouldn't you still deploy a police officer at the same
| time in case it is actually something?
|
| If you send a drone and wait for a dispatch, you wasted
| several minutes of time just to make sure there is something.
| psychlops wrote:
| The key uses will be for monitoring protests, facial
| recognition and crowd control.
| Narhem wrote:
| Yeah seems kind of like an unnecessary step.
| Hamuko wrote:
| If we can strap a Hellfire missile onto a drone, we can surely
| strap a taser too.
|
| No wait, they already did it:
| https://www.npr.org/2022/06/04/1103066205/taser-armed-drones...
| rthnbgrredf wrote:
| > What is a drone supposed to do?
|
| Wait, until they put a 9mm on that thing.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Sometimes it feels like the NYPD's mission is to keep their
| officers in cars as long as possible.
| tommoor wrote:
| preferably idling in a crosswalk or bikelane
| hooverd wrote:
| They should just install sentry turrets on police cruisers that
| blast an any dogs they detect and take the human out of the
| loop entirely.
| lancesells wrote:
| Their phones aren't going to use themselves.
| delfinom wrote:
| Candy Crush is still around due to a dedicated NYPD
| playerbase
| 77pt77 wrote:
| It's more comfortable to play candy crush in your car than in
| some corner.
| baby-yoda wrote:
| Inching ever closer to OCP taking over NYPD
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Finally, a fifth-floor walk-up will be a selling point when
| ED-209 is roaming the streets.
| lupusreal wrote:
| If they're using drones to race officers to the scene to
| potentially capture evidence before the human responders can
| manage to get there, it seems like a good idea. But if the idea
| is to delay human responders who will wait for the drone footage
| before moving in, that just sounds cowardly and bad for victims.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Sadly, the alternative would be to just not show up at all.
| tsss wrote:
| They aren't racing anywhere. The drones purpose is to do even
| less than before and look like they're helping without even
| leaving the chair.
| paxys wrote:
| If something sounds like a good idea, NYPD is probably not
| doing it.
| SantalBlush wrote:
| The _real_ idea is to get the public acclimated to police drone
| use by first using them in some mostly-innocuous way. Then in
| 10 years, they find some other pretense to start attaching
| weapons. For your protection, of course.
| schmidt_fifty wrote:
| There's something deeply diseased about a country that spends so
| much on policing but still has high crime rates and (nearly) the
| highest imprisonment rate in the world.
|
| Meanwhile, the NYPD exemplifies excellent judgement and a true
| commitment to justice and the rule of law (/s):
| https://gothamist.com/news/officer-guarding-mayors-house-unj...
| psychlops wrote:
| It's almost as if policing and imprisonment isn't the solution
| to crime.
| hm-nah wrote:
| Chilling
| jamesfmilne wrote:
| Welcome. Welcome to City 17.
|
| You have chosen, or been chosen, to relocate to one of our finest
| remaining urban centers.
| KingMob wrote:
| With our bad luck, they'll buy those drones with sniper rifles
| that Israel is currently using, so they can shoot New Yorkers
| without leaving the car.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| This is the normal pattern yeah. An american company sells a
| product to israel's military, who uses it against palestinians.
| Then the company can use that as a case study of its
| effectiveness to sell it to american police departments. They
| have done it with many other weapons and surveillance tools and
| they will probably do it with that one too.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Considering the rise in crime in some parts of major cities this
| is pretty much the logical conclusion.
|
| I like cops. I'm not a criminal and as a brown guy immigrant I
| like that America has law and order. Every video I see where
| there's some altercation starts with the other party just being
| hostile for some reason and usually they're career criminals
| anyway.
|
| If people just didn't wake up and choose violence/crime each day
| that would be a good start. It's not that hard and saying it's
| because of poverty is an insult to immigrants like me who grew up
| without running water and nobody in my family ever turned to
| crime.
|
| If not, you deserve to live in this kind of dystopia. I'll
| support whatever it takes to avoid loss of life of people who
| mostly are on the good side and people like me who like tech and
| making money. I've never attacked anyone or robbed someone (been
| robbed half a dozen times myself tho), so I just want to live in
| a nice safe society.
|
| Hopefully these drones will evolve fast and can identity
| criminals quickly and put them away.
| corinroyal wrote:
| > Considering the rise in crime in some parts of major cities
|
| What rise? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2024/04/24/what-the-...
| ImJamal wrote:
| There was an increase if you read the article
|
| > In 2020, for example, the U.S. murder rate saw its largest
| single-year increase on record - and by 2022, it remained
| considerably higher than before the coronavirus pandemic.
| Preliminary data for 2023, however, suggests that the murder
| rate fell substantially last year.
|
| Just because the rate is lower then 30 years ago doesn't mean
| it is not higher then 5 years ago.
|
| There is also a lot of people who believe certain crimes are
| just not being reported, like property theft.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Don't forget a lot of crimes were reclassified. Like being
| able to steal up to 900 bucks and it's a misdemeanor so
| police won't do shit.
|
| Not to mention all the Asians who get beat up in SF and NYC.
| The perps are let go without major repercussions.
|
| Some people just reclassify stuff in an effort to mislead.
| But on the ground it's clear.
|
| Crime might have gone down overall but not exactly the case
| in cities.
|
| SF for example is fine but the places where you want to be
| for tech are still not exactly safe. I don't want to live in
| sunset where it's fine and safe and travel 40 mintutes to
| Hayes/downtown/soma (walking/transit). Ended up moving to
| Palo Alto where I still get my tech fix and I don't need to
| worry about fights and getting attacked by homeless or being
| caught up in some sketchy shit at night, or have my window
| busted.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I've seen police violence in real life several times and every
| time it was started and repeatedly escalated by the police. A
| cop once two-handed his baton into my mouth like a baseball bat
| then broke some of my ribs stomping on me; I was handcuffed,
| calmly sitting on the curb, arrested at a peaceful protest.
|
| I'm glad you like it though.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Like I said. Most. Not all.
|
| My mom suffers migraines and fell in tub when we had just
| moved to America. I called 911 and cop was there within 5
| minutes. My mom can't speak English that well.
|
| I got pulled over once for driving 50 in a 35. I didn't
| realize there was a change in the speed limit. I explained
| this to the cop and that I was just traveling through. He and
| I chatted about photography (I was going to a state park to
| take photos) and he told me to have a nice day and be more
| aware.
|
| Had a lot of encounters with police in SF. Never had a
| problem. They even helped me when my bike was stolen by
| giving me a lift.
|
| So idk. I'm an immigrant guy. I'm not hostile and I'm
| respectful. Also helps that I don't have warrants and a
| criminal record.
|
| I'm sure 90% or more of police are good people. Every group
| has bad people. I work in tech. I know of people who are
| genius tier and also some who are scammer pos type. The
| majority are fine people.
| jfengel wrote:
| If there was a 1 in 10 chance that a police officer would
| beat me up when I encounter them, I'd avoid police like the
| plague.
|
| Even if it was a 1 in 100 chance. Police are armed, and
| have an overwhelming legal upper hand. Police have a
| position of extreme trust and need to have a much lower
| percentage of "bad people" than any other group.
|
| The other problem is that police have been credibly accused
| of tolerating the "few bad apples". If true, then I don't
| consider them "fine people".
| moomoo11 wrote:
| I mean the same could be said for tech.
|
| In startups most people are actually fine, but there are
| wolves as well. People who scam others, lie and steal,
| use people, etc. And there are VCs and various circles
| that protect them.
|
| Does that mean we just don't push forward? Your 1 in 100
| or 1 in 1000 fits here as well.
|
| That's life. If you operate that way, good for you. But I
| operate in reality.
| moribvndvs wrote:
| "Help! I'm in distress!"
|
| "Don't worry, we've got great aerial footage of it!"
| nextworddev wrote:
| Minority Report, when?
| btbuildem wrote:
| I think there are legitimate use cases -- the main one that comes
| to mind is replacing the police helicopter "eye in the sky" with
| a fleet of drones. Cheaper, less personnel involved, and far less
| intrusive for everyone around it. I'm guessing that will be one
| of the uses, but they're also likely adopt from military tactics
| (don't cops love pretending they're soldiers?) and use drones as
| overwatch at "active scenes".
|
| In my experience, flying a drone in urban environments is a
| complicated endeavour. Launching them off rooftops makes a lot of
| sense as it removes a lot of the LOS obstacles, but you have to
| stay high -- they won't be peeking into windows or chasing you
| down alleyways. Manhattan (and any area with tall buildings /
| skyscrapers) would be a no-go zone.
|
| It will be interesting to see how quickly these get lost or
| stolen, or knocked out of the sky with basic countermeasures.
| marcusverus wrote:
| https://archive.is/oHnfJ
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-17 23:02 UTC)