Armed Robot Drones To Join UK Police Force 311
Lanxon writes "British criminals should soon prepare to be shot at from unmanned airborne police robots. Last month it was revealed that modified military aircraft drones will carry out surveillance on everyone from British protesters and antisocial motorists to fly-tippers. But these drones could be armed with tasers, non-lethal projectiles and ultra-powerful disorienting strobe lighting apparatus, reports Wired. The flying robot fleet will range from miniature tactical craft such as the miniature AirRobot being tested by one police force, to BAE System's new 12m-wide armed HERTI drone as flown in Afghanistan."
This issue concerns YRO (Score:2)
or (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically stuff with no relation to the internet has been put under the YRO category many times before.
I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one... (Score:2)
I wonder if the robot is a cousin of that one...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/07/28/2012218/Londons-Robotic-Fire-Brigade [slashdot.org]
The one in the TFA seems to have tracks instead of wheels but they seem similar. Same company building them maybe ?
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe, ignore parent post, picture is misleading. It seems TFA and the summary is talking about flying robots, hehe ;-))
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rubber bungs (Score:4, Funny)
The LRAD is a highly directional speaker made of a flat array of piezoelectric transducers, producing intense beam of sound in a 30-degree cone. It can be used as a loudhailer, or deafen the target with a jarring, discordant noise. Some ships now carry LRAD as an anti-pirate measure: It was used to drive off an attack on the Seabourn Spirit off Somalia in 2005.
I recommend UK people carry rubber bungs to put in their ears, in the case of planetary destruction by Vogons and attack by insane police UAVs.
Re: (Score:2)
When earplugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have earplugs.
Re: (Score:2)
deafen the target with a jarring, discordant noise.
I'll take the Pepsi Challenge against one of these devices compared with The Berzerker [youtube.com] in concert any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you need Teepee for bunghole!
not just criminals... (Score:3, Informative)
British criminals...antisocial motorists
Last I heard, antisocial motoring was rather annoying, but not actually a crime.
"Citizens^W Subjects of the Crown, prepare to be coerced into socially approved behaviours!"
Re: (Score:2)
British criminals...antisocial motorists
Last I heard, antisocial motoring was rather annoying, but not actually a crime.
Isn't some antisocial behaviour a crime? E.g. disturbing the peace with loud noise at night, which can just as easily be a motorcycle as a PA system.
Other than the first paragraph, the whole article is speculation worthy of the Daily Mail. Paragraph 2:
Surveillance is only the start, however. Military drones quickly moved from reconnaissance to strike, and if the British police follow suit, their drones could be armed
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, antisocial motoring was rather annoying, but not actually a crime.
Isn't some antisocial behaviour a crime? E.g. disturbing the peace with loud noise at night, which can just as easily be a motorcycle as a PA system.
True, but then the quote is still wrong to say antisocial motoring when it should say criminal behaviour, otherwise it makes it sound like they're going to be tasering motorists who cut you up at the lights. Which, admittedly, might not be so bad, so long as they wait until they're not driving a heavy piece of machinery before they administer it ;)
Timeline (Score:5, Funny)
February 10 @ 6:43 PM: When Will AI Surpass Human Intelligence? [slashdot.org]
February 10 @ 9:45 PM: Six-legged Robot Teaches Itself to Walk [slashdot.org]
February 11 @ 2:24 AM: Armed Robot Drones to Join UK Police Force [slashdot.org]
In less than 8 hours we have gone from wondering about AI, to robots that have learned how to walk, to robots that are flying around shooting at people. This is all happening much too fast.
Re:Timeline (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
February 11 @ 8:32 AM: Toasters take over Earth [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Does a remotely piloted aircraft even qualify as a Robot?
Its not like these things are autonomous or have even the remotest capability of independent decision making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_HERTI [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
'Does a remotely piloted aircraft even qualify as a Robot?'
If an xkcd mouseover says they are, that's good enough for me:
http://xkcd.com/652/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the AI can be in a satellite remotely controlling the drones.
Re:Timeline (Score:4, Funny)
Worst. Attempt to explain a lame and obscure inside joke in order to get modded up. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Another nice Simpsons reference - the Comic Book Guy, "Last night's Itchy and Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever!", from "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show". Kodos!
Hurrah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Neato! No longer will a call to the cops that your house has been burgled and there are footprints and fingerprints all over the place result in a response of 'we are too busy to investigate, here's a crime number for your insurance claim'. Now it will be 'we will have a unit over the area within minutes, here's a crime number for your insurance claim'. Still no investigation, but maybe the drone can measure how cars are parked and issue some tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
Still no investigation, but maybe the drone can measure how cars are parked and issue some tickets.
It will Stun^h^h^h^hDeafen everybody within a 100 metres radius on the assumption they were involved in the crime. Lucky you!
Idiots on parade (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything sub-lethal will be childishly easy to defeat, once it's been seen in action a few times. And no doubt the methods used will quickly be adapted by terrorists for Third World use on the more dangerous versions of the drones.
I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.
One hint: how will the cops look when they taser a minor who happens to be dressed like the alleged criminal, and how difficult would it be to engineer such a substitution?
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've blown it! They will have to use leathal force on people caught littering! (We knew that was coming, we live here.)
Re: (Score:2)
We must dissent.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Idiots on parade (Score:4, Insightful)
I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.
I'm guessing armed robot drones in the UK aren't there to catch Ocean's 11 level criminals. Quelling soccer riots, following fleeing vehicles, traveling along with protest groups... the drones are probably going to replace the more expensive and slower helicopter crews in the UK police force. Most of the time you just need to let people know that the police are watching, and they'll behave. Or they'll panic and run, and be followed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand your hint. I don't know how things work in your area, but round here when cops kill or frame someone it is hushed up by cops and all the evidence is 'lost'. If there is enough of a fuss made, an investigation is held by cops and the results are heavily censored as they are 'not in the public interest'.
So yeah, if a cop tasers an innocent minor and gets found out, that cop will get suspended on full pay for a few years while an investigation chugs along, then when the fuss has died down an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand your hint. I don't know how things work in your area, but round here when cops kill or frame someone it is hushed up by cops and all the evidence is 'lost'. If there is enough of a fuss made, an investigation is held by cops and the results are heavily censored as they are 'not in the public interest'.
So yeah, if a cop tasers an innocent minor and gets found out, that cop will get suspended on full pay for a few years while an investigation chugs along, then when the fuss has died down and the not guilty verdict brought in he will be reinstated and get the promotions he missed out on while suspended.
Worst case, they'll give him the opportunity to resign on full pension [wikipedia.org] and land a lucrative book deal [amazon.co.uk], but yeah, they reserve that for the truly corrupt and incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
I sat here for barely a minute and came up with three ways to mislead and confuse the drones that would almost certainly have a high degree of success. And I'm no expert.
Assuming the designers are also not experts and themselves spent less than your generous minute wondering whether anyone might not want to be blinded/deafened/tasered by their device, then you should be well ahead of the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the designers are also not experts and themselves spent less than your generous minute wondering whether anyone might not want to be blinded/deafened/tasered by their device, then you should be well ahead of the game.
Past experience of the British government's uncanny ability with technology suggests that unless these drones can make money by handing out fines, the GP is indeed well ahead of the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the drones can stun evildoers for collection by ground forces, just give them a cut of the Information Retrieval Procedure fees collected from the evildoer. Simple.
Re: (Score:2)
The history of things like this is a history of failure. The main reason being that these kind of measures tend to be outrageously difficult and expensive to build and put in the field, but relatively cheap and easy to defeat or destroy.
Take, for example, traffic-light cameras, intended to catch people who run red lights. My city spent something like $150,000.00 for each one. Yet, all it takes is someone in a halloween mask, a long stick, some string, a little duct tape,
Re: (Score:2)
You could take this route which is more permanent...
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm [speedcam.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Note it could also be more cheaply defeated by, for instance, walking into a shopping centre - good luck covering all the exits once you've lost sight of the suspect and they sneak out in a bunch of other people. We'll literally be paying police to play "Where's Wally" - in this case the answer is, "he's the one looking at the camera feed". I wonder what the flight time is on one of those things anyway, I guess you wouldn't have to hide for too long before it returned to base.
And that's without even conside
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiots on parade (Score:4, Interesting)
Body: Heavy-duty cardboard tube. A section of tube from a roll of carpet should do the trick if it is one of those with a thick wall, but even that is a bit large. It would have sufficient strength. But a lightweight metal tube also works.
Fins: Metal or strong wood. They have to be sturdy enough to not distort at mach 1+, and take some heat. Balsa and plastic are definitely not suitable. (And you probably want to make the fins swept to reduce drag.) The attachment must be STRONG.
Control surfaces: SMALL aileron-like panels on the back of the fins. (At high speed it doesn't take much control surface or deflection to change direction.) Vectoring the nozzle is not an option. It is a rocket, not a jet. Usually most of the trajectory will be coasting. Engine burn time will probably not be more than about 1.5 seconds.
Control system: I initially put some details here but I am going to leave that out. I know what approach I would use, but I don't want to be accused of being one of the Bad Guys for putting some kind of full-blown missile plans on the internet. Cost though for the electronics should very easily be under $100.
Business end: your choice here. In some cases I am pretty sure just a hard point should be sufficient to discombobulate an engine. If it is a low-flying craft you might reasonably expect your interceptor to be moving 600 mph or faster. If I were really some kind of freedom fighter against an oppressive tyranny or something, I might use something besides just a point. But weight is an issue.
Propulsion: G-class model rocket engine. Available mail-order for around $30. In some states you need a license to buy them.
Finish: It is important that the finish be very smooth, even polished. The tip of the nose and the leading edges of the fins need special attention. And they should at the very least be coated with heat-resistant paint. That might be a good idea for the whole thing.
That's a pretty rough layout, and might need some tweaking. But possible? Heck yeah. (And note: even if you build something like this just for a hobby rocket, it is VERY dangerous. Adults only. A high degree of common sense and caution required.)
Childishly easy, huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that implies the assumption that most commenters *have* been tased, you should consider readjusting your expectations about your government and police force.
Re: (Score:2)
Childishly easy? There is equipment that can protect against directed sound weapons...a huge, bulky, helmet like apparatus that uses several things to block sound.
There's equipment that can stop tasers...basically a faraday cage around your body.
Heck, there's equipment that usually stops the low powered bullets used by cops. Just wrap your body in kevlar vests and kevlar pants and handgun bullets won't be able to touch you.
Now, as you waddle down the street swathed in protective gear, it'll be trivial for
Re: (Score:2)
Of more concern, I think, would be something like the Active Denial System. But no doubt that is defeatable, too. I strongly suspect that silvered fabric or plastic would prevent the vast majority of the radiation from reaching the skin.
Re: (Score:2)
And those silvered-mylar "Space Blankets" have a real layer of metal foil sandwiched between plastic, are available in the stores here for about $2.00, and weigh about one ounce. Two of them and some duct tape -- or even plain Scotch tape -- should serve to make a passable suit. No need for "full armor".
It's a 'topia sir, but not one of the good ones... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dammit you guys...
1984 and Brazil (movie not country) are not bloody HOWTO guides!
Well I for one... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
This is a highly speculative article, assuming that because these drones can carry weapons that they will.
While I wouldn't put it past the Home Office to want to do this, I'd be surprised if the Police were too keen.
Here in the UK there is a strange dichotomy, we seem perfectly happy to be watched all the time, but the idea of armed police is an absolute no go.
Riot police in the UK don't even use water cannon, and rubber bullets haven't been used by british police in decades. There are a few areas which have introduced a handful of Tasers, but these are used by specialist armed response units, not the average bobby on the beat. The idea of launching anything potentially dangerous from the air seem highly unlikely when they don't even use it on the ground.
Of course that doesn't stop the police from being violent, but when they are it tends to be national news for weeks after. See the death of Ian Tomlinson and the controversial "ketteling" technique used at the demonstrations in the summer for good examples.
The UK Police are currently trying desperately trying to improve their public image after a lot of bad press from the 2009 demos, and the ongoing harassment of photographers and the abuse of the Section 44 Stop and Search powers. Doing something like this would put them back to square one the moment it goes wrong.
So while not impossible, this report seemed to be highly speculative and purely designed to get clicks and build paranoia.
For all their flaws, the UK police are not actually idiots, and in a land where police are not armed, and using a baton in a riot is considered heavy handed, let alone water cannon and rubber bullets, launching Tasers from the sky would be public relations disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
"not the average bobby on the beat"
And when was the last time you saw one of those?
In my area of North London it's weeks maybe even months between sightings.
Re: (Score:2)
I see quite a few, mixed with those PCSO pretend cops. Although to be fair the PCSOs in our area are pretty good.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I walked for an hour in London yesterday and saw absolutely hundreds.
Everywhere I looked there was another Policeman staring at me. To tell you the truth, it began to worry me after a while.
Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the death of Ian Tomlinson was a horrific example of police brutality out of control. One that would not be out-of-place in a fascist dictatorship. And yes, it was big news for weeks afterwards.
So was the police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Remind me again, in each case, who was held responsible for these murders? Do we know their names? Were they jailed?
The answer is a resounding No in all cases.
So please, stop telling us we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt, that this report is only to fuel paranoia.
When it comes to the police in the UK, their own actions have demonstrated that paranoia is necessary and healthy.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There is almost no violent crime in the UK by US standards (suggesting the surveillance state pays off), and a couple of dead guys at the hands of police is a trifle for a country that size. Let's not get emotional over tiny numbers. Further, if the public objected to a surveillance state they'd be politically active against it.
Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:4, Informative)
There is almost no violent crime in the UK by US standards (suggesting the surveillance state pays off), [...]
Nonsense, there is almost no violent crime in most of the Western world by US standards. It doesn't say anything about the efficiency of surveillance in the UK but rather about the climate in the US.
Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have any statistics to back this up? I went to http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime [nationmaster.com] and added up the per capita statistics for murder, rapes, and assaults and it looks like the UK has more violent crime than the US. The US has more murders, but that is a relatively small percentage of violent crime.
This article [dailymail.co.uk] also says Britain has more violent crime than the US, and has the most crime in Europe. I know it's easy mod points to say anything bad about the U.S., but reasonable people need to try to avoid the temptation unless it's factual.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/menezes-london [guardian.co.uk]
Not much accountability going around in the U.K.
Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course that doesn't stop the police from being violent, but when they are it tends to be national news for weeks after. See the death of Ian Tomlinson and the controversial "ketteling" technique used at the demonstrations in the summer for good examples.
While I mostly agree with your summary of the likelihood of seeing armed drones, I have to say when it comes to police violence, when it's found out it is national news for weeks after, but how many incidents never get discovered or reported? They even tried to cover up Ian Tomlinson's death for the first couple of days and it's only the advent of camera phones and the video evidence they captured that revealed their lies. How many times has something like this happened in the past and not been discovered - as recently as five years earlier even the truth behind Tomlinson's death would probably have never been revealed, this is a rare case of the surveillance environment coming back to bite the police. No wonder they are so against the public using cameras around them.
Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
...but the idea of armed police is an absolute no go...launching Tasers from the sky would be public relations disaster.
First, the UK's armed police is significantly on the rise (for the Met, deployments have risen over 50% in six years, despite firearm incidents falling), and they're almost part of the landscape in London. Most of them are still static patrols of high-profile locations, but the Met has been actively planning for routine armed patrols [guardian.co.uk].
The UK Police also seem immune to legal boundaries - their retention of DNA and the use of 'stop-and-search' have both been ruled illegal, with no discernible effect to date. More worryingly, even in high-profile cases of physical abuse, manslaughter and credit-card fraud, officers have been quietly rewarded rather than disciplined.
Secondly, they're getting much better at PR. If the Guardian [guardian.co.uk] is right, they started using the spy drones to scour the coast for immigrants: "There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a 'good news' story to the public rather than more 'big brother'." And, since then, they've been practicing on the BNP [bbc.co.uk] (paradoxically an anti-immigration minority party with a poor reputation).
It would be utterly wrong to conclude that the UK police are power-hungry, trigger-happy thugs with mental deficiencies, lethal toys, immunity from sanction and slick PR skills. But it would be incautious not to consider the possibility.
Re:Not impossible, but very unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
2005 would like its analysis back. Tasers are now being issued and used by street Plod [thisislondon.co.uk] in many [bbc.co.uk] forces [bbc.co.uk].
How many of the taserings reported above did you read about "for weeks after"? The beauty of taser is that it's the perfect punishment and compliance tool. No big bruises, no lasting damage except in rare cases, where the excuse is always "underlying medical condition".
(Some) Plod who don't have them say they don't want them. Plod who have them love them, and will never go back. Police PR is about covering up [thisislondon.co.uk] their actions, not about altering them.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of launching anything potentially dangerous from the air seem highly unlikely when they don't even use it on the ground.
Especially after something goes wrong a few times. It is not easy to hit the right thing from an aircraft, so once a few kids/old peopple/obvious innocents have been tasered, or one of these has been flow into a house, it will get very unpopular.
But... (Score:2, Funny)
All in all... (Score:2)
sluggyfreelance in the comics slashbox (Score:2)
herti-corp
but more seriously
BAE is the second largest defense contractor in the world. It got caught doing bribery years back and promised not to do it any more. But of course it did and lied about it. The big bribe lately was a bribe of the Saudis on maybe a 43 billion dollar deal., which is even discussed in the bribee's autobiography.
Now you might think BAE might get their ticket pulled. But on the brit side, BAE is key to their global strategy and on the usa side, a real investigation of the saudi d
They should first spy on cheating MPs . . . (Score:2)
. . . a bunch of British MPs abused a system for living expenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal [wikipedia.org]
. . . especially the guy who used tax payer money to clean the "moat" around his estate . . .
. . . a drone armed with a Hellfire missile would be appropriate justice for him.
Wrong URL (Score:5, Informative)
Am I the only one who thinks... (Score:3, Funny)
That flying ultra-powerful strobes are perfect for an outdoor rave?
something new (Score:2)
after bobbies
here come robbies
to catch robbers
raised with teletubbies
Tactical Nukes (Score:4, Funny)
Not as good as real cops (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear ... (Score:2)
Wonder how long it'd be... (Score:2)
Before some enterprising young cracker decyphered their radio control signal, took one over and crashed it into the house of commons, preferebly through one of the windows so they could set off the strobe/taser/deafening noise during prime minister's question time.
HERTI is not armed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
throw in nuclear powered autonomous plains too...
Autonomous geographical features? Sounds like a slowly developing problem to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe plains as the nose on your face.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, you have: Thrusting [answers.com], dikes [wikipedia.org], cleavage [answers.com]
Geologists are perverts.
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I'd have to disagree with that.
They'll find a way to monetise this - have the robots automatically hand out fines, for instance - and believe me, within a year they will be amazingly efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Eventually, however, the robots reach the point where they are both functional and profitable for the government. Subsequently, Margaret Thatcher will be re-elected, and the robots will be privatized as Robocops, Plc, and will never work again.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying LRAD aimed at you will be creative.
Old way was a on a truck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EUU0BpQego [youtube.com] the fun starts at 1 min in.
Or in the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM [youtube.com]
If its used by the forward intelligence teams,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6im93mDOhFc [youtube.com]
this will get very personal and direct.
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this part of TFS was about a slightly different story, but: "[...] modified military aircraft drones will carry out surveillance on everyone from British protesters and antisocial motorists to fly-tippers" sums up the state of the UK perfectly, our Glorious Government will spend millions on police drones that carry out surveillance on everyone from protesters to motorists to people throwing away rubbish, so everyone except criminals then?
It's the same old pattern, if it costs a fortune and can be used to keep the guy on the street under control, the budget is endless whether the excuse is terrorism/crime (new strict laws, insane airport security, full body scanners, ID cards, numerous measures to spy on everything we do) or our own "safety" (miles and miles of speed cameras, even on roads where you're lucky to be doing half the speed limit most of the time), and yet nobody seems to feel any safer.
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course there is good reason for that: nobody is any safer.
Traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates. A recent report said that approximately 1 crime was solved for every 100,000 surveillance cameras installed (there are over a million in London). The report did not say whether any of them were major crimes, or whether the same crime might have been solved anyway had the cops been on the street instead of behind cameras. And how about cost? How much does it cost to install 100,000 cameras and pay someone to watch them?
And so on. It seems like it has just been an endless stream of the same old thing: give up your liberties in order to make you "safer", but in reality it inconveniences you greatly, costs you a lot of money, and doesn't work. But you have still lost those liberties.
--
"They that give up essential liberties in order to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism just doesn't scare me.
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a lot more afraid of the increasingly draconian powers of governments than I am of terrorists.
Next to this lot, one more drone in the sky that isn't going to do more than spy on you, tase you or cause an epileptic fit with its strobe lights seems like nothing, which tells you have far we have fallen. Roll in 6 May, and may none of the big parties achieve a working majority that lets them take any of this madness any further.
By the way, was anyone else dumbfounded while listening to David Miliband talking about the release of the torture information yesterday? Speaking in Parliament, he seemed far more interested in being nice to the US and protecting the intelligence agencies than he was about the fact that our government knew about torture being carried out on a British resident, and did nothing about it! He even had the cheek to claim that the revelation of this information now showed that everyone had recourse to the law and the system was working, which I'm sure will be a great comfort to those under control orders who clearly do not have any such thing, not to mention to the man who was held and tortured for years in this particular case. I thought our succession of increasingly abusive Home Secretaries was bad, but Miliband, D. has just made it to second place on my "really doesn't get it" scale, right behind Blair, T.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
N
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"... and yet nobody seems to feel any safer."
And of course there is good reason for that: nobody is any safer.
Traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates.
That's not relevant. Have traffic cameras reduced injury rates and/or seriousness of injury? British roads are some of the safest in the world, but that's a combination of traffic patterns, road design, driving style, congestion, law enforcement, and so one. We have very safe motorways, but we don't do so well on residential roads (although the spread of 20mph limits should help there).
How much does it cost to install 100,000 cameras and pay someone to watch them?
A small proportion of installed cameras in the UK are monitored. Most of them are owned privately (in shops etc), and the r
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference (Score:4, Insightful)
"That's not relevant."
Why isn't it? I don't know about the UK, but here, cameras were installed at traffic lights for the specific purpose of catching people running red lights. The onstensible motivation for installing the cameras was to discourage people from running those red lights, and thereby prevent accidents. But according to reports from the UK (who have had them longer than we), and those U.S. cities which have had them for a couple of years, pretty consistently indicate that they have the opposite effect: that of actually increasing the accident rate. None of the studies of which I am aware noted any significant increase or decrease in relative injury or fatality rate of those accidents.
So, basically, they have just the opposite societal effect as was intended, and as was used to justify their expense to the public. But the fact of the matter is, we KNOW why they were installed in our community, despite what the local politicians said: they were put there to generate revenue for the police department through the issuance of traffic tickets. I know that is so because they are required to report it. Those same politicians recently voted to increase the number of cameras in my city, using as justification the fact that each existing camera brought in a bit more than 3 times the revenue than what it cost. They did not even bother to pretend this time that they were for preventing accidents.
"A small proportion of installed cameras in the UK are monitored. Most of them are owned privately (in shops etc), and the recording is only looked at if something happens."
Whether they are owned privately or not is the part that is irrelevant. It still eventually comes down to societal cost. Those businesses that installed cameras will increase their prices or their margins so the "the people" eventually pay for them.
As for the other part: so, only a small proportion are monitored. How small? Is maybe 0.1% a good rough guess? If so, then here is what you still have in London, according to those figures from the BBC: you still have the societal cost of installing 1,000,000 cameras and the video systems that go with them, plus the cost of 1,000 people to watch those systems, to solve 10 crimes. Not even necessarily major crimes.
That is a lot of cost. And even if you figure the initial cost is gone after the first year, you still have the cost of paying 1,000 people to watch cameras in order to solve 10 crimes. That is still a lot of cost. 1000 x annual wages or salary, to solve 10 crimes.
And that is one of the reasons we don't do it here.
Re:Obligatory 1984 Reference (Score:4, Insightful)
"That's not relevant."
Why isn't it?
It's not relevant, in the sense that I don't really care about someone causing minor vehicle damage rear-ending a car that stops a bit too quickly at the lights. I care about the people suffering serious injury when someone runs the lights.
But according to reports from the UK (who have had them longer than we), and those U.S. cities which have had them for a couple of years, pretty consistently indicate that they have the opposite effect
The only reports like that I've seen have been from very biased motoring organisations.
The government [dft.gov.uk] statistics show the number of "KSI" (people killed or seriously injured) is reduced.
they were put there to generate revenue for the police department through the issuance of traffic tickets
Which doesn't happen in the UK (at least, not at a local level). The revenue goes to central government. Local authorities (local government) get grants for road safety, which they might use on cameras, or they might use on education, training, or redesigning roads.
In the USA there seem to be places that have installed cameras and decreased the yellow-light time. Here, the yellow light time is standard (for a given speed of road).
That is a lot of cost. And even if you figure the initial cost is gone after the first year, you still have the cost of paying 1,000 people to watch cameras in order to solve 10 crimes. That is still a lot of cost. 1000 x annual wages or salary, to solve 10 crimes.
You've just made up a load of numbers.
People monitoring cameras don't solve crimes, although they might witness them. Police looking through what was recorded may get evidence which they can use to solve crimes and convict criminals.
Monitored cameras are either a deterrent -- they move the problem elsewhere, although obviously not as well as a policeman standing in the street would -- or they are used for directing the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A recent report said that approximately 1 crime was solved for every 100,000 surveillance cameras installed
That's quite impressive. By the time you've wired the camera in, powered it, connected it to some sort of recording system and sat someone at the other end, I can't imagine you'd see much change out of £150-200 per camera (and that's before you consider the wages for the person watching the camera). Which comes to around £20 million per crime solved.
I wonder how many more policemen you could hire for £20 million.
Re: (Score:2)
probably 20
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you find yourself under fire, you'll likely go fight-or-flight, and unless you're superbly trained and disciplined, you won't keep calm but fire at everything that might be the shooter. If you find your remotely-controlled drone under fire while you're comfortably sitting in front of a computer screen, the situation is different. Sure, losing a drone might not be great, but the decision between sacrific
Re: (Score:2)
Have you even read either of those books? The amount of times people on slashdot shit out "references" to 1984 which basically consist of mentioning the title of the book whenever the uk government proposes anything invasive or tries to give too much power to the police. This is not insightful. Do you even know what 1984 is about, other than "they have cameras everywhere"?
If somehow a Scientology Party got into power in britain, then I'd start shitting myself about "1984"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only the outcomes of these crazy ideas were that good...
Re: (Score:2)
Right to remain silent? What century are you living in?
Re: (Score:2)
Daleks are not unmanned drones.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)