
Police firing GPS tracking 'bullets' at cars during chases - fraqed
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57609416-71/police-firing-gps-tracking-bullets-at-cars-during-chases/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=TechnicallyIncorrect
======
Osiris
I have two brothers in the highway patrol and they believe that it's
imperative that they chase anyone trying to get away, in order to make sure
that anyone in the future knows that they can't run from the police, despite
the risks of collateral damage to innocent people.

On the other hand, high speed chases frequently end up causing car accidents
with innocent people, sometimes fatally.

The question becomes, is there a way to still capture the person trying to
escape police without putting innocent people in harms way?

I applaud any efforts to eliminate casualties caused by high speed chases.

~~~
macspoofing
>they believe that it's imperative that they chase anyone trying to get away,
in order to make sure that anyone in the future knows that they can't run from
the police, despite the risks of collateral damage to innocent people.

Kinda forgot about the whole "to serve and protect" part didn't they.

~~~
wpietri
Not at all. It's a hard question.

If there is no point in running, way fewer people will run. That could mean
net fewer chase-miles, and also fewer crimes committed, because fewer
potential criminals would think they might be able to get away with it.

The officers likely believe that serving and protecting requires them to
always chase. Whether it's true or not is something that has no obvious a
priori answer. It'd be great to find the answer empirically, but until then,
I'm inclined to defer to the pros.

~~~
alan_cx
Have the number of car chases decreased over time due to all the chases
teaching people its not worth running?

~~~
bradleyland
You're asking the wrong question. The question is how chase/no-chase policies
would trend against a control. These types of social experiments are very hard
to conduct, because there are so many confounding variables.

------
Groxx
> _The system costs $5,000, and each bullet sets the taxpayer back $500._

That's surprisingly not bad. $500 to stop a crazy-dangerous chase? Definitely
worth it if it works. I'm used to things sold to governments being a few times
more expensive.

~~~
elwell
Yeah, I was expecting him to say at least a 5-figure number for each system
and something about one-time-use.

~~~
frostcall
If the round is still good, then getting it refurbished is only $250.

------
jasonkolb
That's pretty cool. GPS jammers are relatively easy to make however. Funny how
hacking skills are quickly becoming the most powerful skills in meatspace as
well.

~~~
sopooneo
Yes, but I expect the _vast_ majority of chase targets were not planning to be
chased, and would thus not have counter measures ready.

~~~
Already__Taken
All you need is any electronic devices - FAA Spokesperson

------
mapt
Supplement to this device: A 1-watt IR LED beacon that strobes a few times a
second, and a fleet of small foam/electric flying wings that will track that
beacon from 400 foot altitude at high speed (much cheaper to use CMOS sensors
and a beacon than something FLIR could provide for engine heat).

The current arrangement is vulnerable on two fronts - GPS jammers, which could
be extremely disruptive to modern society, and jammers on whatever frequency
is used to transmit position (GPS itself is a passive receiver technology).

------
parliament32
They called it a "bullet" about eight times in that article.

The thing is the size of a bloody coffee cup.

~~~
malandrew
In all fairness Bullet Bill is half the size of Mario and has Bullet in his
name.

[http://www.mariowiki.com/Bullet_Bill](http://www.mariowiki.com/Bullet_Bill)

------
gknoy
I recall seeing this in Ghost in the Shell, as well. It's not surprising, but
it is somewhat disappointing: a GPS tracing bullet sounds like it would still
be quite dangerous if it were to miss.

~~~
frostcall
It's about the weight of a softball and travels at ~32mph. It hurts but
probably won't cause serious injury. You're much more likely to get injured by
the vehicles that would presumably be driving at roadway speeds if you were
close enough to be hit by the round.

~~~
maxerickson
Does the gun use less of a charge when the police car is at speed?

If not, it will often be going faster than ~32 mph.

------
trippy_biscuits
This only tells where the car went and may not implicate the real criminal.
Imagine a someone borrowing a car, fleeing from the police, getting tagged,
and then returning the car to its origin.

The tag may help stop the police from engaging in dangerous driving, but what
about the driver of the tagged car? If the driver knows the car is tagged,
perhaps the driver will still drive dangerously? I suspect the action of
tagging a car still encourages the police and the accused to behave
dangerously. What if an occupant of the car returns fire?

------
officialjunk
i am surprised this has taken so long, considering it's been going on in
movies for quite a while.

~~~
frooxie
Spider-Man has been doing basically this since the 60's!

------
philjackson
I really like this idea.

A common tactic for people being chased by the police here in the UK is to
head for the most densely populated areas they can. This will most likely
cause the police to refrain from the pursuit due to concerns of collateral
injury.

With a GPS gun they could fire a tracker at the car, let them travel through
the town and head them off as they exit. There's always a chance of them
bailing but that was always a risk anyway.

------
afarrell
These require Probably Cause, right? I'd assume so since they also seem a bit
dangerous if they hit a human.

~~~
endianswap
IANAL but evading/fleeing the police is unlawful in most US jurisdictions (if
not all, and there's a felony variant in most) which sounds like it meets the
bar for probable cause (though I'm not sure probable cause is required for use
of this in all UW jurisdictions, hasn't there been very recent activity on
vehicle tracking devices in appelate courts?)

~~~
nilved
It's not fleeing or evading if they're not trying to detain you, which itself
"requires" "probable cause."

~~~
gcr
Why would they fire bullets at you if they aren't trying to detain you?

To me, that speaks less of "Sir Please Come With Us Quietly" and more of "This
Ain't Working, Let's Cut Our Losses And Try To Disable Their Escape"

~~~
baddox
Why would they fire real bullets at people they're not trying to detain? It's
a good question, but they definitely do.

~~~
jlgreco
What exactly is the fear here, they are going to accidentally hit a different
car? Not really a big deal, considering during normal chases they accidentally
hit other cars... _with their car_. Is the fear that they are going to sticky
innocent law-abiding drivers on purpose? Well they already follow people and
pull people over without reason, so I'm not seeing this as something new in
that regard.. though this of course leaves a better audit trail.

~~~
nilved
That they're going to use this for illegal purposes, just like all of their
other equipment.

~~~
jlgreco
Right, I'm getting that, but what _exactly_ is the fear? Can you give me a
specific scenario?

