Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Police Use James-Bond-Style GPS Bullet

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the coordinated-assault dept.

Transportation 210

mrspoonsi writes "The BBC reports that police in the U.S. are now using 'GPS bullets,' a device they can shoot at fleeing vehicles in order to track them. They're designed to make high-speed chases safer. The pursuing police car presses a button, a lid pops open, and a GPS bullet is fired which becomes attached to the fleeing car. The car can then be tracked from a distance in real-time without the need for a high-speed pursuit."

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What could possibly go wrong? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277233)

Oh, and 'first!'

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year ago | (#45277263)

Well, we might find Scorpio's lair finally!

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0, Troll)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#45278321)

Not likely, very few U.S. cops would be ABLE to utilize these and probably WON'T.
1. Cops have a hard time expending the expense of regular ammo and complain of shortages.
2. Having a bullet ready for GPS duty at all times means having a spare pistol on your belt. What, did you think it went in with the others? You gonna shoot all your other ammo till you reach the GPS bullet?
3. $500, get the fuck outa here. Nobody cares that much except the BBC who suckered you all into looking at ads over their vaporware story anyway.
4. This won't go to cops, FBI and other government sh*tsticks will be issued them in large amounts, because, the people paid for them, the administration O.K.ed them, then Congress funds it. Just like all the other crap. State and local cops get whatever the "state' or county pays for, keep on wishin'.
5. This is a bad idea, watch it die.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#45278529)

It seems you've skimmed the article, but not actually noticed an important point that was even mentioned in the summary:

The pursuing police car presses a button, a lid pops open, and a GPS bullet is fired which becomes attached to the fleeing car

I think since it could potentially save a lot of money on damages to public roads, cars, buildings, etc, that it probably would be used. It could even be funded by local insurance companies.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45278649)

Yes, but a good criminal would push his Speed Racer like button, and envelope the car in some type of Faraday Mesh rending the GPS bullet useless.

BWhahahahahaa....

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278727)

Not likely, very few U.S. cops would be ABLE to utilize these and probably WON'T. 1. Cops have a hard time expending the expense of regular ammo and complain of shortages. 2. Having a bullet ready for GPS duty at all times means having a spare pistol on your belt. What, did you think it went in with the others? You gonna shoot all your other ammo till you reach the GPS bullet? 3. $500, get the fuck outa here. Nobody cares that much except the BBC who suckered you all into looking at ads over their vaporware story anyway. 4. This won't go to cops, FBI and other government sh*tsticks will be issued them in large amounts, because, the people paid for them, the administration O.K.ed them, then Congress funds it. Just like all the other crap. State and local cops get whatever the "state' or county pays for, keep on wishin'. 5. This is a bad idea, watch it die.

Guess how I know you didn't RTFA.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#45279059)

1. This is meaningless since it will be separate device

2. It is a bullet that is put in a hand gun. It will be a separate device which could be mounted on the pursuing cop car.

3. $500 is chicken feed compared to the damage, potential loss of life, insurance liability etc. of a high speed pursuit. Cops don't have to maintain constant visual contact to see where the vehicle is going. Consequently they can drop back, lessen the tension of the pursuit, plan to intercept the vehicle with stingers etc and bring the thing to a safer and faster conclusion.

4. It'll go to those departments which see merit in carrying it. Presumably the FBI have far more covert means of tracking the car than chasing after it and firing something at it which splats on the back of the car.

5. Read the article.

SO OLD NEWS (4, Informative)

irving47 (73147) | about a year ago | (#45277235)

Not slashdot's fault... This is news from around 2009!

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-7000/first-gps-projectile-tracking-device/

Re:SO OLD NEWS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277319)

As summarized it's old news, but in TFA the news seems to be that "the firm behind it is now keen to get the system into the UK."

Re:SO OLD NEWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277653)

I do not have a citation but they were suppose to have created something similar, an taser like device that could be shoot from the front of a police cruiser and disable the cars electronics, most importantly the ignition system cutting out the coil packs thus shutting down the vehicle.

Some thing else is the "drone" programs, or even local sheriffs helicopters, or media helicopters could and should be used to follow the the target, keeping police at a distance and units surrounding a 1 mile radius until the suspect stops.

The fact that none of this is being widely used only proves cops are assholes and shows they have no respect to protect life. On top of all the other stories pouring out about more and more police abuse, and or corruption. Just locally alone the surrounding police departments are constantly in the news over corruption and civil rights violations, and the neighborhoods are dominantly white.

Re:SO OLD NEWS (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45278031)

The number of helicopters is quite limited in the UK.

ghost in the shell (5, Interesting)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about a year ago | (#45277237)

ghost in the shell invented it first

Re:ghost in the shell (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277283)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_gadgets [wikipedia.org]

Actually, I don't think I see any sort of gps-bullet type tracking/homing device. There were a lot of tracking devices but none seem to involve shooting a bullet.

I wonder if maybe Get Smart or some other series did the tracking bullet (before GITS).

Re:ghost in the shell (2)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about a year ago | (#45277307)

Try that with your Seburo!

Even earlier (2)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45277381)

Even earlier than that: The movie Kiss the Girls and Make Them Die" [wikipedia.org] (1966) had one.

Not a bad movie for its time. The movie is a spoof of James Bond movies featuring a completely tricked-out Rolls Royce. (You can watch the trailer here [youtube.com] .)

Re:ghost in the shell (4, Informative)

tragedy (27079) | about a year ago | (#45277449)

If we're using fictional examples, Spiderman has been using tracking devices in the comics for 30-40 years now. They are fired from the web shooters and stick to targets. They don't use GPS, of course, they're more traditional tracking devices that emit a signal and have to be tracked by the signal. The point is that this idea is hardly new, but it's interesting that there's this real-world working example

Re:ghost in the shell (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#45279045)

If we're using fictional examples, Spiderman has been using tracking devices in the comics for 30-40 years now. They are fired from the web shooters and stick to targets. They don't use GPS, of course, they're more traditional tracking devices that emit a signal and have to be tracked by the signal.

1) Spider-Tracers were NOT fired from his web shooters, they were thrown by hand.

Not sure what signal they emitted, but it was only detectable via his "spider-sense".

Note that I haven't read Spiderman in 30 years, so things may have changed since then.

Re:ghost in the shell (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about a year ago | (#45277617)

I came here to say EXACTLY this. WTF? I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?!

Re:ghost in the shell (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#45277737)

I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?!

I thought this was nudes for nerds.

Imagine my disappointment.

Re:ghost in the shell (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278053)

i like u - tai opera mini mien phi [taioperaminimienphi.com]

Re:ghost in the shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278333)

Nudes for nerds, stiff that mattress?

CAPTCHA - Dented

Re:ghost in the shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278673)

I thought this was nudes for nerds.

Imagine my disappointment.

Disappointed? Fix that today by swapping brain cases with our newest geisha's.

Re:ghost in the shell (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year ago | (#45278717)

You want to see naked fat guys like me? Ew.

Re:ghost in the shell (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#45279081)

Thanks for the image (gag). He said "nudes for nerds" not "nudes of nerds". ;)

Re:ghost in the shell (1)

ausekilis (1513635) | about a year ago | (#45279331)

I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?!

I thought this was nudes for nerds.

Imagine my disappointment.

It is, here's one example, without covers [alienware.com]

Re:ghost in the shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278533)

ghost in the shell invented it first

Spider-tracers. Spider-man was doing this before ghost in the shell i believe.

The car can then be track (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277239)

"The car can then be track from a distance"

Really, Slashdot?

Re:The car can then be track (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277313)

Really. Slashdot.

Typical BBC bias (2, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#45277281)

The StarChase system is a pursuit reduction technology that contains a miniature GPS module encased in a tracking projectile/tag and a launcher mounted on a police vehicle. It is neither a bullet nor a weapon as the BBC story claims. It doesn't use gunpowder, it uses compressed air. The word bullet does not appear anywhere on the company's website - except where another ignorant journalist has used it. [google.com.hk] You'd think the BBC would be better and more educated than the Des Moines, Iowa local news. You would also be incorrect in that assumption.

You can argue that 'weapon' means 'tool used to achieve a goal' - but come on, this is the BBC we're talking about. You put the words "American police" and "bullet" together and quite naturally scare words like "weapon" come out. Look at the quote on the page: "There are other ways to track vehicles and this could raise some civil liberties issues." What does that even mean? Fleeing from the police, endangering the lives of everyone on the road and all the BBC can think of is how the criminal's rights might be violated...somehow. Unfortunately this mental rot extends throughout the entire organization and its journalists are simply no longer able to think straight. I doubt anyone even thought for a second about the bias. Sad, because once the BBC was a paragon of honesty. Look back at newsreels and 80s broadcasts and you will see a very different organization.

Re:Typical BBC bias (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277345)

Sorry, I don't see the bias. The article is calm, clear and balanced, and I don't see any attempts to mislead. The words "bullet" and "weapon" are used reasonably for the sake of easy comprehension and don't allude to anything sinister. The note about civil liberties issues is a passing quote from an expert and not in any way sensationalized.
The contortions necessary to make it look like lies or scaremongering are all yours - I think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

Re:Typical BBC bias (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#45277725)

If it agrees with our bias then isn't bias, amirite? It's purely objective and anyone who could disagree is mentally unstable. Because there's only one correct way to think.

Re:Typical BBC bias (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45277775)

It's not bias. The usage of 'weapon', which only occurs once in the title, is to indicate that it is useful in a conflict. You will find lots of results for 'weapon against identity theft' in a Google search. The usage of bullet is an accurate description of what this is. It seems to me that you are the one with the very strong bias.

Re:Typical BBC bias (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#45278141)

Objective and rational have well defined meanings. Turns out the universe has implemented many ways of "thinking" but the universe itself also has a bias against irrationality and weeds it out pretty much as "soon" as it emerges.

Re:Typical BBC bias (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | about a year ago | (#45279333)

If you think it's biased then it must be biased, amirite? It's purely biased and anyone who could disagree is mentally unstable. Because there's only one correct way to think.

Re:Typical BBC bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277813)

You don't see it because there isn't any attempt to mislead. However DNS in a fit of impressive hypocrisy decided it was biased because it didn't fit with his worldview and then accused you of being biased for not sharing his opinion either. Apparently his definition of not being biased is when your opinion matches his.

People never see bias (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about a year ago | (#45278947)

People never see bias, if they agree with the bias.

Re:Typical BBC bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277365)

If anything, the BBC article is positive about the technology!

Re:Typical BBC bias (4, Insightful)

Falconhell (1289630) | about a year ago | (#45277367)

Lol, when every US cop show has more shooting in the intro than an entire series of a comparable BBC show of much better quality, and you keep shooting each other at worlds highest rates, it seems spot on to me.

Re:Typical BBC bias (0, Troll)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#45277613)

Lol, when every US cop show has more shooting in the intro than an entire series of a comparable BBC show of much better quality, and you keep shooting each other at worlds highest rates, it seems spot on to me.

This is disingenuous as well as plain wrong.

If you take out the stats for inner-city drug-gang-related firearm murders/shootings in the top-six largest US cities with the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws, the US is right in the middle of international gun crime/murder stats. Gang activity is responsible for about 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90% in some. The vast majority of the US is in no way some sort of ultra-violent "wild west", as some who have swallowed the propaganda and are anti-2A/anti-US, try to paint the whole nation.

The US "war on some drugs" is overwhelmingly the most responsible for violent crime including gun violence, aggravated by government increasingly restricting the ability for law-abiding and peaceful potential victims to legally possess and carry firearms for protection, for the daily deluge of tragic drug-financed gang-related deaths in the US and the corresponding high gun-crime rates in those inner cities that push the national numbers up.

It's much easier for US politicians, as it shifts blame and attention away from their power-grabbing "war on some drugs" (and increasingly the "war on 'terrism'") and attacks on civil rights across the board, and works in favor of ever-more-intrusive and abusive government control of the people if privately-owned firearms are vilified and owners demonized instead of addressing the true causes which the government is largely responsible for in the first place.

Don't listen to what they say. It's all just propaganda and pandering to manipulate the ignorant. gullible, apathetic, & plain stupid.

Watch carefully what they do and what the results are. Otherwise, you may just find yourself in a Pink Floyd song.

"Listen son, said the man with the gun, there's room for you inside." - "Us And Them" - Dark Side Of The Moon - Pink Floyd

Strat

Re:Typical BBC bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277649)

> If you take out the stats for inner-city drug-gang-related firearm murders/shootings in the top-six largest US cities with the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws, the US is right in the middle of international gun crime/murder stats.

Is that "top-six largest US cities which happen to also have the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws" or "top-six largest US cities and then screw the results so we only look at the ones with strict gun laws"?

> The vast majority of the US is in no way some sort of ultra-violent "wild west", as some who have swallowed the propaganda and are anti-2A/anti-US, try to paint the whole nation.

The majority of this "propaganda" comes from your own cop shows.

Re:Typical BBC bias (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year ago | (#45277827)

Not BlueStrat, but going by population:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix

The two that I wouldn't peg as 'most onerous anti-gun laws' would be Houston and Phoenix. Going down the list, I'd have to pull #8 San Diego and #10 San Jose to get six 'extremely anti-gun' cities. Also, it might seem strange but Texas doesn't exactly have the most liberal(IE allowing) gun laws in the state. There are a number that don't require permits at all for CCW, open carry is illegal in most of Texas, etc...

Re:Typical BBC bias (1, Redundant)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#45278051)

Is that "top-six largest US cities which happen to also have the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws" or "top-six largest US cities and then screw the results so we only look at the ones with strict gun laws"?

I replied on impulse and from memory. I believe it was more like if you remove the gang-related gun violence stats from the 12 largest cities, many of which have some of the strictest & most onerous gun laws, the US averages for gun violence/deaths is somewhere in the middle of the international averages.

The point stands, however, that the "highest gun violence rates" claim against the US compared to international stats is disingenuous, misleading, and wrong.

Direct quotes from a United States Department of Justice report released by the Obama Administration in November of 2011. Link below.

âoeBlacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).â

âoeMales represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).â

âoeApproximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000.â

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf [usdoj.gov]

> The vast majority of the US is in no way some sort of ultra-violent "wild west", as some who have swallowed the propaganda and are anti-2A/anti-US, try to paint the whole nation.

The majority of this "propaganda" comes from your own cop shows.

Gee, a US TV entertainment show dramatizes it's content? They're not documentaries??? /sarc

Sounds more like people not being intelligent enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

The propaganda I'm talking about and that I know you're well aware of despite your snark comes from the government and anti-gun groups.

Guns are like the panopticon, in that once the technology is out there neither ever will, or even can, be made to go away. The only logical action, as with the panopticon, is to make them universally available for anyone to purchase and possess who is not either underage, psychologically unstable, or a convicted criminal prohibited from owning firearms.

"An armed society is a polite society."

"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

Strat

Re:Typical BBC bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278181)

> . I believe it was more like if you remove the gang-related gun violence stats from the 12 largest cities, many of which have some of the strictest & most onerous gun laws, the US averages for gun violence/deaths is somewhere in the middle of the international averages.

Thank you.

> Gee, a US TV entertainment show dramatizes it's content? They're not documentaries??? /sarc
> Sounds more like people not being intelligent enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

But this is how the US as a whole (which I am well aware is are silly as "slashdot as whole") displays itself. Going by the cop shows in the US I'd not be comfortable walking round NYC late at night. However the UK cop show are generally no where near as violent and walking round the scary area of London would be no where near as scary.

> The propaganda I'm talking about and that I know you're well aware of despite your snark comes from the government and anti-gun groups.

Not really. The UK has no vocal anti-gun groups, we have no real need as that fight has been [win/lost]. We have some small pro-gun groups.

Re:Typical BBC bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279153)

I don't think the mass killings of late are gang related nor have they happened in the "top-six largest US cities". Locally, we had 2 people shot to death while riding bicycles just in the past 4 days. One more and the suspect becomes a serial killer... nice.

Re:Typical BBC bias (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45277493)

The US aspect of "raise some civil liberties issues" is well known over a few cases going back many years (say mid 1980's) DNS.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/warrantless-gps-monitoring-scotus/ [wired.com]
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/gps-tracking-unconstitutional/ [wired.com]
Its not bias, its just reality, the English language used to describe objects, actions, physics and past US legal history.

Re:Typical BBC bias (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#45277609)

The StarChase system is a pursuit reduction technology that contains a miniature GPS module encased in a tracking projectile/tag and a launcher mounted on a police vehicle. It is neither a bullet nor a weapon as the BBC story claims. It doesn't use gunpowder, it uses compressed air. The word bullet does not appear anywhere on the company's website - except where another ignorant journalist has used it. [google.com.hk] You'd think the BBC would be better and more educated than the Des Moines, Iowa local news. You would also be incorrect in that assumption.

You can argue that 'weapon' means 'tool used to achieve a goal' - but come on, this is the BBC we're talking about. You put the words "American police" and "bullet" together and quite naturally scare words like "weapon" come out. Look at the quote on the page: "There are other ways to track vehicles and this could raise some civil liberties issues." What does that even mean? Fleeing from the police, endangering the lives of everyone on the road and all the BBC can think of is how the criminal's rights might be violated...somehow. Unfortunately this mental rot extends throughout the entire organization and its journalists are simply no longer able to think straight. I doubt anyone even thought for a second about the bias. Sad, because once the BBC was a paragon of honesty. Look back at newsreels and 80s broadcasts and you will see a very different organization.

There are guns that fire projectiles with compressed air and have been since at least the 18th century. This is the Star Chase system [nerdbeach.com] , to me it looks like a compressed air gun and that fires a bullet like projectile so the BBC is essentially right. It seems to me that you are getting worked up over nothing because you don't like the BBC and have no made up 'EU wants circus performers to wear hard-hats' type story to get worked up over this morning.

Re:Typical BBC bias (0)

Demonantis (1340557) | about a year ago | (#45277665)

The BBC is pretty bad. I wouldn't say FOX bad, but they love to push an agenda. All news agencies are biased. Let me know when you find one that isn't.

Re:Typical BBC bias (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#45278175)

You know why I like the BBC and their sister stations in Australia, over the years they have been accused of biased by all sides of politics. Using 20/20 hindsight their track record of "getting their facts straight" is hard to beat, and that's the reason why the are castigated so heavily by politicians when they do fuck up.

Re:Typical BBC bias (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277715)

> It is neither a bullet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet [wikipedia.org]
"A bullet is a projectile propelled by a firearm, sling, or air gun."

It sounds like a projectile propelled by a firearm to me. It is not a cartridge or a bullet that once lived in a cartridge I agree.

> nor a weapon

They are going to the most artistic use of the term "weapon".
> You put the words "American police" and "bullet" together and quite naturally scare words like "weapon" come out.

The use of a "weapon against crime" even for completely none-weapon-y stuff is common in the UK press. New laws, youth clubs etc all become the "Latest weapon against crime!"

I think you are looking for offence were none is meant.

Re:Typical BBC bias (1)

Inda (580031) | about a year ago | (#45277815)

The BBC technology website is not a place you go for facts.

"Rory", the editor, is obsessed with Apple and I'm suprised there isn't a paragraph about how "cars can be tracked on an iPad".

Re:Typical BBC bias (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277921)

If you read your own link, the StarChase website refers to it as a cannon ffs.

I think we can forgive the BBC for toning it down to bullet from cannon shell.

Re:Typical BBC bias (3, Informative)

Njovich (553857) | about a year ago | (#45277969)

Except of course when it's perfectly fine to describe this as a bullet, there is absolutely nothing in the word bullet that requires the existence of gunpowder. Hell, bullet just means small ball by origin.

Re:Typical BBC bias (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45278477)

> It is neither a bullet [...] It doesn't use gunpowder, it uses compressed air.

Bollocks - it is a projectile flung at force towards a target. You're not confusing the word "bullet" and "cartridge", are you? There's precisely no need for gunpowder or any other explosive to be involved in the flinging of bullets.

The BBC explained (3, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about a year ago | (#45278935)

The thing to remember about the BBC is that is the elite, who know they are the elite, getting an elite salary living in the elite section of London being quite ashamed about being elite, ridled with white guilt but not to the point of you know, hiring a "black" person. It is fun when you watch a show like "Have I got news for you" and you realize that 99% of the presentors and guests make more per episode then most Brits make in a year. "Deayton's salary was halved to £25,000 a show but the latest revelations forced Ms Heggessey's hand." http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/29/broadcasting.bbc6 [theguardian.com]

That was ten years ago. HALVED TO, so it USED to be 50.000 pounds. Per episode. The series used to do two seasons per year of around a dozen episodes. And 50.000 pounds was his fee PER SHOW!

Now I don't know the exact economics of the UK but I think it is fair to assume that for most people, 50k a YEAR would be a nice salary to have. This guy gets it for a couple hours "work". His co-hosts frequently portray themselves as either being "working class" or defender of the down-trodden but they get similar fees and have other jobs besides this show.

Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson made a joke about the UK soldiers who were captured by Iran that they made quite a nice salary "oh that is per year!?! never mind" he then quipped. It is funny but it shows the complete separation between normal people (the audience of the BBC) and its stars. What do these people, whether they host a popular entertainment program, a news show or the news itself about losing their job and not knowing how you are going to pay next weeks rent (and no, not knowing how you are going to pay the mortgage on your 3rd 5 million pound summer home is not the same thing).

Or do you think Angus Deaton getting his salary halved from a mere 50k to 25k for an half hour show is on the same level as a pensioner having their benefits cut?

The BBC used to be a rare mix of working class and oxford silver spoon people making TV if not together then at least in the same building. This has changed. The pay has gotten so good that even if they were working class when they started, they aren't after a few years. This has rotted the BBC to the point you can see it in their news service, they just don't get the working class, let alone the class without jobs anymore. They feel sorry for them but like a nobel who sends his butler with the remains of the turkey dinner to the orphanage. Watch some HIGNFY eps were there are working class union reps on. The hostility is palpatable, how dare these people who make less then 20k a year tells us what it is really about.

Not a James Bond gadget (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#45277375)

I remember Bond sticking a tracking device in the trunk/boot of Goldfinger's car, as well as in the pocket of the one gangster who decides not to buy into Goldfinger's scheme (and ends up getting shot by OddJob, then crushed); and I remember him tracking the one Goodnight placed in the trunk of Scaramanga's car (where she also ended up). But I don't believe Bond ever fired one out of a gun - that's more of an American cop show gimmick.

Re:Not a James Bond gadget (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year ago | (#45277691)

Exactly. One was used by the female protagonist in the pilot episode of the Robocop TV series. Of course, nobody likes to do any research.

Civil Liberties Issues? (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#45277387)

What issues are those?
A hot pursuit is the perfect situation to tag a vehicle with a GPS device and then back off.
The social benefit of not chasing someone far outweighs the social cost of the transient tracking.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277479)

"What issues are those?"

      How about because the tech will be so easy to use that it will be used on everybody, all the time, for any reason, NSA style.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year ago | (#45277505)

Not to mention one very important point....

It's fired from a fucking cop car

What on Earth is stealthy about that? It's compressed air but that does not mean you would not hear the thunk on your car. It's also on the outside of your damn car at a level that can be seen with the most inattentive of inspections. How long could it go unnoticed?

There are no civil liberty issues here at all. It's abundantly clear that it's only viable during a high speed pursuit. Civil liberties my ass. If the cops are chasing us down without due process, and we have legitimate reasons to fear them following us, we are a hell of a lot more fucked. At that point civil liberties would be a luxury.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (1)

aXis100 (690904) | about a year ago | (#45277671)

Err, in order to do anything about it the perps would have to stop and get out of the car. That gives police an opportunity to catch them.

Not exactly difficult logic.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#45277753)

It's fired from a fucking cop car

. . . which will probably itself be enough to cause the driver to crash.

Despite what you might see on TV or in the movies, most folks get a little jumpy and freak out, when a copy hangs out the window of his car and fires a gun at you.

I recall that there were similar problems when motorcycle cops started using hand held radar speed guns.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#45278539)

Despite what you might see on TV or in the movies, most folks get a little jumpy and freak out, when a copy hangs out the window of his car and fires a gun at you.

Except there isn't a cop that hangs out the window to fire a gun at you with this device. The "gun" is mounted in the grill of the police vehicle. All the officer has to do is align themselves with the vehicle they are pursuing and press a button. The fleeing vehicle would have no idea they are being "targeted" until the thunk is heard.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278637)

"If the cops are chasing us down without due process, and we have legitimate reasons to fear them following us"

Like speeding tickets

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (1)

andydread (758754) | about a year ago | (#45278661)

so the perp hears the thunk on their car as the leave and once they are out of sight they simply stop the car and carjack someone with a different car to get away. putting them at risk.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#45278943)

That takes rational, clear thought. A perp in a high speed chase is panicky and probably focused on "get away now" at the expense of everything else. He probably won't recognize the thunk on his trunk; if he does, and he analyzes it rationally, he'll probably realise car jacking is a more serious offense than what he was running from. The one thing this situation is not is "simple."

We tend to give all criminals a lot of credit for being clever and ruthless, because that's what we see in movies. However, that's only because clever, ruthless villains make for interesting movies and fiction. Most are run-of-the-mill stupid, and the really violent offenders are thankfully few and far between.

High speed chases are always very risky, not only to the perp and the police, but to the public at large. Right now, many cops are under orders to break off pursuit in the interests of public safety. As a society, we have decided it is better to let the guy run away rather than chase him into a school bus full of kids, even though we don't like the idea that he should get away with it. This tool might help reduce the risks as well as the chances of him getting away.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277743)

Oh I agree what you're saying but the problem is not about protecting the innocent, it's not overpowering the police like it is right now. Unmarked black police cars, ridiculous hummer-tanks, the police force is armed just about as much as a spec ops unit and the list just goes on. Sure, it can save lives but just how many lives will it take through corruption?

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277985)

I thought there were discussions about needing a court order before attaching a GPS tracking device to a car. IANAL, but I'd suspect this might produce some grey areas (a.k.a. business opportunities for lawyers).

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277991)

A hot pursuit

Also known as stalking someone attractive...

is the perfect situation to tag a vehicle with a GPS device and then back off.

Now that's hi-tech stalking.

The social benefit of not chasing someone far outweighs the social cost of the transient tracking.

So true. People kinda lose trust in ya when you've been identified as a stalker.

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (1)

Dereck1701 (1922824) | about a year ago | (#45278489)

"A hot pursuit is the perfect situation"

That assumes that police will limit themselves to using these ONLY in such situations, it takes a 5 minute Google search to turn up case after case where police used laws/equipment far outside of their original intent. In this case assuming the price comes down and the use of them is not properly tracked officers could easily tag former girlfriends, enemies, & family members to track their whereabouts. Of course it is illegal, but that hasn't stopped officers from threatening to murder people, framing people for vehicular assault, & attempting to destroy evidence. I'm all for police having the tools and legal status to do their work, but there needs to be severe criminal penalties for when they over step their bounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pjXKCKyP44 [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuyvzWwvRBM [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MesDaXPkrNQ [youtube.com]

Re:Civil Liberties Issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279167)

What issues are those?
A hot pursuit is the perfect situation to tag a vehicle with a GPS device and then back off.
The social benefit of not chasing someone far outweighs the social cost of the transient tracking.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that cops MUST have a warrant in order to use GPS tracking systems. AFAIK there are no "public safety" loopholes in that decision. Nor should there be as cops would abuse them. Let them use their EMP cannons instead. [[http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/2339204/electromagnetic-pulse-gun-to-help-in-police-chases]] NOTE: Slashdot article is from 2010 and the equipment "filled a lab". But I have read other articles that they have shrank the device down considerably and it was successfully deployed and battlefield tested in Afghanistan (2011).

If this becomes popular (3, Insightful)

Inev (3059243) | about a year ago | (#45277417)

If this becomes popular, then so will GPS jammers for any who expect a need to make a getaway.

Re:If this becomes popular (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45277475)

Re GPS and cell jammers:
Guess the cops will have to buy into larger frequency hopping beacons that try a few different types of triangulation - gps, cell and other gov or private tracking networks.
With that comes a larger battery too i.e. the bullet might have to grow to be a bigger beacon?
In the end laws will be altered for a new car to have http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-28/big-brother-coming-your-car [zerohedge.com] with an encrypted ignition override.
The cops will network into the car and stop it.
Try and remove the blackbox and the car of interest will be more tricky to start.
Guess its back to using a truck to "recover" the car.

Re:If this becomes popular (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year ago | (#45277553)

With Google's project and laws quickly coming on the books for automated transportation you're spot on.

Forget freedom or privacy anymore. The cops will be jacked in to a transportation network that will tell them where your car is at all times. It's already about that easy with a cell phone. It won't be possible to not have it either. It's by far the most logical outcome since cars communicating with other cars can dramatically increase efficiency. Meaning less traffic during rush hours. Go just a little bit further and it will make sense to send course adjustments to a car from a centralized control center that is making adjustments for city wide efficiency.

Add a coupla dashes of CISPA here and there... and voila! ... The Minority Report. Just missing that whole precog thing going on.

The most hilarious part about it is that people will be twatting that they're on their way to work automatically cuz the toll booths will twat it for you :)

Re:If this becomes popular (3, Informative)

citizenr (871508) | about a year ago | (#45277561)

Dont know about US, but in Europe its pretty standard for a car thieve to use unlocked ECU to bypass any immobilizers\electronic keys.
Long forgotten are the days of connecting wires under the steering column, now they just swap computer and car magically starts.

Re:If this becomes popular (2)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year ago | (#45277841)

You're overthinking the issue. If they're jamming GPS that means they're transmitting. If you're transmitting all they need is equipment to track the jammer. They stop jamming and you go back to tracking the tracker, they jam you track the jammer.

Re:If this becomes popular (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45278591)

The problem is that jammers have, by design, a rather large RF footprint.

Re:If this becomes popular (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#45279093)

Wouldn't it be easier for the criminals to ditch the car once the police have backed off? Then they could steal another car and continue their escape untracked.

Fire them at the suspect's person (0)

dohzer (867770) | about a year ago | (#45277441)

The chase will end a lot quicker!

Cue usual paranoiacs (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45277503)

This is only positive, there are no ramifications for your privacy for one simple reason - it's only useful in a high speed chase. When they want to track you (to see how many times you drive by your latest stalk-ee or to see how many cheetos runs you make to the local Quik-E-Mart) they can just attach it under your car much more easily already.

Re:Cue usual paranoiacs (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a year ago | (#45278593)

> it's only useful in a high speed chase.

I'm afraid that's not true. While shooting your car with such a device will probably trigger a car alarm on a modern, high value car, the ability to implant such a device remotely without ever being seen near the car is invaluable for both legitimate and illegitimate surveillance. The ability for an officer, 50 yards away, to implant 2 or 3 tracking devices in only a few seconds and get away unseen, without surveillance cameras showing them near the vehicle, is invaluable. Outside a loud bar frequented by gang members, it could be a much safer way for the officer to attach tracking devices to select vehicles.

The potential for abuse is also certainly there: if the device is small enough to be effectively fired as a bullet, it's also small enough to be effectively dropped in the vehicle or snuck into someone's bag or purse.

head in the sand? (3, Insightful)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about a year ago | (#45277569)

"GPS bullets that can track the location of a suspect's car"

"There are other ways to track vehicles and this could raise some civil liberties issues" -- Dave Allen of Leeds University

shh! nobody tell him about PRISM or his head might explode.

I can see a flaw (2)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | about a year ago | (#45277621)

If your car is being GPS tracked, and the police aren't giving chase just park up and run off. Idelly push it down a hill empty so they don't notice it's stopped (because that's not dangerous at all). Let the police have their fun and GPS track an empty car.

Re:I can see a flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278469)

I agree that it may not help with organized crimes. But a lot of criminals are just plain stupid. Plus reducing the chances of accidents maybe worth losing a few.
Add finally it may be that cops still follow the criminal, just that now they can co-ordinate with other cops in the general directions where the criminal is heading.

James Bond? (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#45277741)

What about the 60s TV show Batman and his Bat Tracer?
Him and Robin were always pegging villians cars with those things.

I don't remember James Bond doing that, but then again, I can't say I remember all the details of those movies, and I haven't seen any with the latest Bond, but still, the Batman TV show was from 66-68 and 120 episodes.
(That show was really corny, but hey, I was only 6 when I watched it in reruns. I definitely didn't watch it when it was originally aired. Come to think of it, pretty much everything on Saturday morning was rather campy.)

Oh yes, if someone wants to complain that it wasn't GPS, I guess you have to remember 2 things.
First GPS is rather new, the first GPS satellite was launched in 89, and it wasn't completed until 94. There were other navigation systems before then.
Second, the Batman TV show didn't say how the bat tracers worked, but they did put up the exact location on a map, so they were a lot better than the basic radio beacon you would have expected back then. Of course, this is Batman. A rich guy with access to all the best super tech of a world where super heroes and super science exists.

Oh well. It doesn't really matter. It's just that it's late, and I feel like pointing this out. :P :D
Don't forget the past, otherwise it will p0wn you ya n00b !
(Trust me, nobody wants to get teabagged by grandpa.)

Short sentences cause crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45277763)

If they made the sentence for stealing a car, twenty years in prison, you would see almost ALL car theft stop within a few months, would you not?

stealing a gps (2)

BeaverCleaver (673164) | about a year ago | (#45277831)

If you drive away with the tracker attached to your car, can the cops charge you with stealing it?

Re:stealing a gps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278227)

Theft requires intent in most jurisdictions, and most likely the "thief" does not want to take the tracker away with him. If he does, he deserves to be charged with stupiditiy :-)

Re:stealing a gps (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45278785)

If they attach it to your car and damage the paint work, and then you are later found innocent can you recover the cost of the repair from them?

I have often wondered about this when the police raid people's houses. They smash the door in, take all your stuff and often damage or lose it. A couple of years later when you are found innocent you get back your laptop and it's battered, hard drive wiped (the UK police do wipe innocent people's drives for some reason) and tatty. What compensation is available?

Re:stealing a gps (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#45278859)

Theft is "intention to permanently deprive". Thus, if you intend to do it, quite possibly. However there are issues of criminal damage on the part of the police if you are innocent (same as if they ram someone off the road but got the wrong car).

Also, to answer another post, if the police kick in your door they have to make it good. Especially if you're innocent (yes, you could argue for the cost of it even if you were guilty but you'd have to have good reason, i.e. they didn't correctly call "Police", or warn you, or whatever). If they take your property, they are not allowed to wipe the drives unless you had something illegal on them (that's again criminal damage). If they did, you can sue for compensation. The whole "can the police make you delete photos" debacle clarified that issue quite well. No, they can't. It's not their property. But if the photos are illegal, they can confiscate them (which would eventually include deletion if you were guilty) but they can't "damage" them or delete them until they are brought before a court (that's basically destruction of evidence) and they can't make YOU do it either (again, without a court agreeing in your specific case). They can request it quite forcefully but if they make you do it, it's illegal. Same for any data on confiscated items.

However, you are not entitled to a lot of things like getting your data back immediately even if it's business-critical data when the PC is confiscated. Tough, basically. You can try to sue for compensation later if you can prove the value of that data and that they absolutely did not have to confiscate that PC (which is almost impossible, because they have a legal right/requirement to gather evidence).

Basically, if you're left out-of-pocket as a result of their actions, because they were in error (you didn't do the crime, the goods were confiscated illegally, etc.) you can sue for compensation. Otherwise, they have to return what they confiscated in the condition it was taken or, again, you can sue for compensation.

It might take years, of course, and not be worth the hassle but you don't avoid because it might be hassle - if you think you were wronged according to the letter of the law, then pursue it relentlessly until a judge tells you otherwise.

Exchange Rate (5, Funny)

carou (88501) | about a year ago | (#45278037)

It costs $5,000 (£3,108) to install and each bullet costs $500 (£312).

Apparently the exchange rate was updated while they were in the middle of writing that sentence.

Anonymous Coward (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278041)

I thought this was news for nerds dammit?!?! - tai game pikachu mien phi [taigamepik...ienphi.org]

Not a very good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278133)

If I was driving some stolen car (I know the car may not always be stolen, I'm just swinging for the fences here), why would I care if there was a tracking device on the car? I just wouldn't want the cops right on my ass, that way I could simply ditch the car and run or get a new car.

Seriously, hasn't anyone played GTA lately?

What could, er, went wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278465)

Seriously, doggies. You all know the drill by now, don't you? First, it's for tagging fleeing criminals. Then, henious child molestors will have to have them er, "inserted" ("attached", maybe?) [youtube.com] . Then, dangerous prisoners being transported, then .... all the way until everyone has to have one to go out in the street. Babies too, of course. And, gues who'll have the blockers and spoofers? Not you, certainly. Of course, no fair system would arrest you and neuter your family just because your ID was detected near a crime scene. Would it, now? And, guess who'll operate the $y$tem (M or G)?

HA! HA! (4, Funny)

Guest316 (3014867) | about a year ago | (#45278503)

This is why I keep the back of my car coated in vaseline. Checkmate, Johnny Law!

What about the judge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278547)

Will he have a special bullet too, to shoot the warrant at the chasing police car?

BMFG Tesla Coil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278609)

Hidden in the gas tank, of course. But you could then claim it to be an "electric vehicle". Ergo, tax exemption and, Profit! Aha! :)

how about gps jammer? or 3g jammer? (1)

sirber (891722) | about a year ago | (#45278697)

subject sais it all :)

Ineffective? (2)

Fredde87 (946371) | about a year ago | (#45278801)

Surely the criminals would pick up on this new technique very quickly? If its a stolen car (which I would assume most police chases are caused by), wouldn't the criminals just dump the car and flee on foot since there is no cops chasing right up behind them? I guess one could argue that its better that a car thief gets away and no one gets hurt rather than a car chase were innocent people might be injured or killed, but I don't see how this system would catch even close to the same amount of criminals as the police catch today...

insurance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278857)

Wonder if someone who proves themselves as 'innocent' would get to have the luxury of having the police department pay for the new paint job to fix the dings that this 'bullet' will cause?

Can I get one? (1)

sabbede (2678435) | about a year ago | (#45278865)

I'd love to be able to tag dangerous drivers so the police can brutalize them at their own leisure.

Not that I support police brutality in cases other than reckless or rude driving. And none of that namby-pamby Rodney King stuff either. I'm talking Abner Louima.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>