Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
4. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Feb 15, 2013, 10:20 Beamer
 
I have no problem with sending a thermal drone into the mountains to find an armed and dangerous fugitive that has already killed.


Permanent drones flying over our homes? Don't see it happening:
1) What's the real advantage here? You'd have to have someone manning them, as it would be decades before we had AI smart enough to actually identify a crime. Decades, maybe centuries. So the amount of manpower needed is astronomical

2) On top of that, you can't use much of the technology. Cops have tried all kinds of crazy methods to see into homes. While courts have repeatedly said that cops can use helicopters without a warrant, as it isn't terribly different than sitting in a car, courts have also repeatedly said cops can't enhance their senses without a warrant. They've tried using thermal imaging and sensing devices to check the heat in homes before. The lamps used to grow marijuana are hot, so it's easy to see if a home is using them. Courts wouldn't allow it. They wouldn't allow drones to do anything similar

3) The false hit rate would probably also be astronomical, also increasing costs

So at best you have an expensive device with a man sitting somewhere using it for hours on end. And you still need cops patrolling on the ground because even if this device spots something it can't do anything about it.
I don't see a huge advantage for cops. Yeah, overzealous Sheriff's officers think it would make their lives easier, but in practice I doubt that's all that true.

Of course, it not being practical, efficient, or overly feasible won't stop people from trying. That's what courts are for.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. Feb 15, 09:52 Re: Morning Legal Briefs InBlack
  2. Feb 15, 10:04 Re: Morning Legal Briefs xXBatmanXx
  3. Feb 15, 10:08  Re: Morning Legal Briefs nin
>> 4. Feb 15, 10:20   Re: Morning Legal Briefs Beamer
  5. Feb 15, 10:24   Re: Morning Legal Briefs xXBatmanXx
  6. Feb 15, 10:24  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Verno
  7. Feb 15, 10:35   Re: Morning Legal Briefs InBlack
  8. Feb 15, 10:42    Re: Morning Legal Briefs Beamer
  10. Feb 15, 10:48    Re: Morning Legal Briefs Verno
  9. Feb 15, 10:46   Re: Morning Legal Briefs RollinThundr
  11. Feb 15, 10:57    Re: Morning Legal Briefs Beamer
  14. Feb 15, 11:34     Re: Morning Legal Briefs RollinThundr
  12. Feb 15, 11:14 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Creston
  13. Feb 15, 11:23  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Verno
  15. Feb 15, 11:41 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Verno
  16. Feb 15, 11:54  Re: Morning Legal Briefs RollinThundr
  17. Feb 15, 11:59  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Beamer
  18. Feb 15, 12:15 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Cutter
  19. Feb 15, 12:24  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Verno
  20. Feb 15, 14:08 Re: Morning Legal Briefs xXBatmanXx
  22. Feb 15, 14:59  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Verno
  21. Feb 15, 14:17 Re: Morning Legal Briefs jdreyer
  23. Feb 15, 16:19  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Bhruic
  24. Feb 15, 16:53 Re: Morning Legal Briefs mag
  25. Feb 15, 17:07  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Julio
  26. Feb 15, 17:11  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Beamer
  27. Feb 15, 17:27 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Rossafur
  28. Feb 15, 18:27 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Cutter
  29. Feb 16, 05:54  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Julio
  30. Feb 16, 12:23 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Redmask
  31. Feb 18, 08:32 Re: Morning Legal Briefs gray


footer

Blue's News logo