[politician]

Prediction: When the system goes to dispatch the closest UAV to the disturbance, the launch system will return "500 - Destroyed".

EDIT: C'mon, downvotes? You do realize that vandalism will be a serious problem for this system.

[Jach]

I think you need to make a convincing argument that vandalism will be a problem. Paraphrasing from The Information, pg 144, there was also that concern when Morse and Vail set up their wires wrapped in yarn on 20-foot posts. Morse told Congress they could transmit 30 characters per minute and he also told them that the lines had "remained undisturbed from the wantonness or evil disposition of any one." There is even more ample opportunity for domestic terrorism and destruction of things in the US today yet things seem okay.

Of course if the UAVs did start getting destroyed, it's not a stretch of imagination to think about how they could be protected...

[jlarocco]

Drug dealers and gangbangers aren't stupid. If they see the cops installing these things it's only a matter of time before they'll find out what they are and start vandalizing or destroying them.

From the sound of it, if there's enough crime for these things to be cost effective then there are enough criminals around for somebody to get rid of the shot detectors.

I don't think the comparison to telegraph lines really makes sense. If telegram lines were used solely for reporting crime it would be a better analogy.

[tptacek]

Every high-crime neighborhood in Chicago is studded with cameras with flashing blue lights. The enclosures are hardened. Destruction of CPD cameras has not been a major issue in the city. If the city can keep cameras operational, they can keep acoustic sensors (smaller, no line-of-sight requirements) secure as well.

My guess (just a guess) is that the "criminals will destroy the sensors" concern is totally overblown.

[mahyarm]

I heard about pissed of people in the UK putting a tire over a speed / red light camera post and lighting it on fire. Tires are harder to extinguish than your typical fire and it's usually too late before it can be put out. Eventually it becomes unprofitable for the third party contractor to stay there and they start going away.

[regularfry]

You can put a tire over a speed camera without your picture being taken by it and instantly transmitted off-site.

[celticninja]

It happens but not that frequently.

[politician]

Well, my comment was specifically directed towards the idea of a UAV first responder system. It's not hard to imagine ways that the detection system itself can be hardened (or hidden).

[temphn]

> Drug dealers and gangbangers aren't stupid.

Dispute the premise.

The head capos might have some smarts, in a cunning sort of way. But the footsoldiers and unaffiliated who get into gunfights on public streets? Not so smart. Disorganized American urban criminals aren't at the level of Al-Qaeda or the Mafia.

[mparlane]

You don't need to destroy them to make them ineffective. Just find a way to produce a high number of false positives legally. Or hell, get 10 mates to fire some shots in 10 different locations while you make your hit.

[kika]

Or use a silencer.

[eropple]

I think you greatly misunderstand what a suppressor actually does on a firearm.

[kika]

what do you mean? I know how silencer (sound suppressor) works and I know (and was shooting) a gun which doesn't require a suppressor. The latter one makes no noise AT ALL, except for the mechanics.

[Symmetry]

Presumably the drug _dealers_, who are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence in their own neighborhoods, are going to want to keep those shot detectors unmolested.

[larrys]

"I think you need to make a convincing argument that vandalism will be a problem."

I think if the people having shoot outs are so brazen that they can do this and people aren't necessarily reporting them it's not a stretch to think that they will, just for fun, attempt to shoot down a UAV. Wearing a mask or course to protect their identity. Or try to damage it while it sits up on the pole with a rock etc. (Although I guess it could be protected from that fairly easily).

[Jach]

I don't know what thugs do for fun. I don't see why shooting a UAV would be any more fun or wise than taking an axe or chainsaw to a telephone pole to cut the power of a block you intend to commit a crime in. (Plus if you know what the UAVs are for, you know that your shooting will be heard and police can have a very short response time just from that. Add in redundant UAVs that fly higher and faster, you're not getting away.)

Another form of protection: they'd be less likely to shoot at something that shoots back. (Good luck making that legal for a private company though, even if the UAV managed 99% non-lethal accuracy!)

I think UAVs are impractical for other reasons (why not just put cameras everywhere instead of a fewer number of mobile cameras?), but I still don't think they'd be that much more a target for destruction than the electrical grid.

[larrys]

"I don't see why shooting a UAV would be any more fun "

Doesn't have to be the thug shooting it down. Can be a pain in the ass bystander in the hood or someone with a baseball or rock. Have you ever seen kids who throw sneakers up over electrical pole wires in the inner city?

"they'd be less likely to shoot at something that shoots back."

Absolutely positively not going to happen.

[JabavuAdams]

Huh. I'm pretty sure that shooting down a UAV would be fun, and I'm not even a criminal.

I know of army units that have a machine-gun-the-RC-planes day for fun.

[politician]

> If you know what the UAVs are for, you know that your shooting will be heard..

If only there was a device which could be affixed to the barrel of a pistol which could reduce the decibel level associated with the firing process... ;)

[jsprinkles]

Assuming these people did add UAV monitoring (a leap), and assuming a UAV was dispatched to every report of gunfire (another leap), it doesn't matter if the assailants shoot it down because they already know where the gunshot was and, with a decent response time (another leap), officers can be there in minutes.

[cead_ite]

Not really the best analogy: telegraph/phone lines sit there passively and pose no apparent immediate danger, while the aforementioned UAVs would present an active threat to wrongdoers’ wrongdoing and thus become targets...

[ChuckMcM]

A number of people have responded to the key points, but one that hasn't been mentioned is that we have a presumption of innocence. So if a UAV shows up, and you're holding a .45 caliber handgun, we still have to presume you are innocent of the shooting (you may have picked up the gun from the street for example). However, if you take aim at a UAV streaming video back to base and start shooting at it, well that can and will be used against you in a court of law.

There is another issue which is that a hand gun is a poor weapon for shooting down an aerial vehicle. A good marksman, or someone very lucky might do it, but the weapon of choice would be a shotgun. Shot guns on the other hand are not effective at range so in a street fight they aren't a good weapon (great for close quarters, poor for engaging at range).

So in a completely lawless sort of situation I could see teams of shotgun toting folks keeping the UAV population down but not in the typical urban setting in the US.

[thisrod]

I wonder what happens when a low light camera meets a laser pointer. Does anyone know?

[bigiain]

Direct laser hits make camera sensors pretty unhappy:

http://www.hdcamteam.com/2011/07/10/report-cmos-ccd-cameras-...

If camera toting quadcopters on microphone equipped poles become common, I'd expect West Oakland gangs to start handing out high powered laser pointers to all the local kids…

[mahyarm]

Well I don't know about low light, but lasers operate on very narrow color bands, so if you filter out the color of the laser in the video stream, you filter out most of the laser light. You also have to be very precise to actually hit that tiny sensor moving in the air from a distance.

[hahainternet]

Criminal charges.

[Cushman]

Return fire?

[jrockway]

"Clipping."

[fireflash38]

Just so you know, shotguns are not the wildly inaccurate things as depicted in most TV shows and video games. Depending on the choke and ammo used, they can be accurate up to 50yds with Buckshot (depending on choke), and probably up to 100yds with slugs.

I would say the most damning thing about using them for the purposes you describe would be the awkwardness of carrying around a shotgun that is that accurate and hiding it.

[john_horton]

This sounds like a case where the problem of collective action would actually work in society's favor: a single vandal would bear the full cost of destroying the sensor (e.g., the risk of getting caught), but the "benefits" of the destroyed sensor would be diffuse, spread out to all would-be shooters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action

[TeMPOraL]

At this point you have to compensate the individual enough by, e.g. paying much and/or providing proper equipment[1].

[1] - I imagine a proliferation of cheap microwaves converted into portable battery-powered anti-electronics weapons. And how do you protect UAVs against that?

[spyder]

I don't think it's easy to destroy a small moving object so far away that you can barely see it. The UAV don't has to fly too close to take photos or video and it can be very small. A more useful thing for the criminals would be a jamming device against the wireless signals of the UAV, but then they can make the UAV work without wireless (without the live stream it can still take photos and videos of the place).

[mindcrime]

You do realize that vandalism will be a serious problem for this system.

I sure hope so. My dream is to start a DIY / Open-Source Hardware project to create a drone that can shoot down the government drones and UAVs.