on history channel... cops remotely disabling vehicles

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Phoenix police had one cop car totaled, and another 4 damaged, plus 2 or 3 non-police vehicles damaged a few weeks ago by one guy who tried to run from the cops. That cost the tax payers a couple shiney pennies.

We've had 2 pursuits in 2 weeks here, which resulted in several damaged cars as well. It all comes out of our transportation budget, which is pre-set by the city council based on tax revenue.

Originally posted by: armatron
YOU might not; but "others" might. It's also not really pertitent whether you have the time; it's whether it is possible.


Also; being a local cop, you probably don't care to "see" or "hear" whether you can or can't.

The Feds don't give a sh!t, because they don't run traffic. Local police are often too busy handling calls for service, so we don't run traffic much during peak hours (and even when we do it's easy enough to find something without audio/visual survaillance). Maybe Highway Patrol would get some use out of it, but I can't imagine anyone else using it extensively.

Where I live (northwest of atlanta) revenue from traffic tickets is huge. There is an enforced qouta (with huge public outcry). imo it's bullsh!t. around this time (end of the month) I and my coworkers/friends regularly get pulled over for doing 8-10 over and ticketed. That's ridiculous. it's also a matter of time before the "feds" start banking on this income as well.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
YOU might not, but the politicians and upper management that make all the laws and tell YOU WHAT TO DO on a daily basis, well, they have all the time in the world.

The world of "internal combustion" is ruled by insurance companies. Your cruiser has a camera in it, I'd wager, right, Brad? It won't be long until whomever is monitoring that cam has the power to shut down your cruiser...and my car....and that 18 wheeler doing 56 in a 55, etc.

Forget that it's ME saying this for just a minute and think about the level of technology that exists right now. There have been articles about this in Mechanics Illustrated and various computer/tech/geek type mags for more than a year now. It's coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it b/c it's The Money that's makes the rules.

IN addtition, w/i the next 100 years, all vehicles will be driver-less. Control via computers is taking over as we speak. i'm glad I'll be dead.

Politics (local, state, federal, whichever) really don't govern our day-to-day operations. If there is a problem that the politicians want addressed, they usually give us grants to run special overtime assignments (DUI saturation, Party Patrol, Selective Traffic Enforcement, etc.). But you are right about them having all the time in the world.

Actually only a handful of our cruisers currently have dashcams & portable microphones, and they're only used by the more senior officers. The camera saves to a DVD and isn't viewed live by anyone. There would have to be a serious increase in the number of officers on the streets to have anyone get pulled over for 1 mph over the speed limit (I'm talking like 3 times more cops out there).

You're right that there has been talk about this stuff for a long time, but honestly it would be YEARS before anyone seriously implemented it. You might see experimental stages in big cities here and there, but unless it works terrifically it probably won't come to light on a widespread basis.

Originally posted by: armatron
The cost of implementation is passed on to consumers regardless of the path.

It's really just a privacy issue. If we lived in communist russia then I would understand... but we don't; and imo it's my right to have privacy of what I'm doing. I suppose when these rights were established there was never any thought (as they didn't exist) to the relation with electronic survelliance. I understand if they are looking for the latest suspected terrorist; that my rights might have to be waived in the greater good for the country; but an issue like my car being disabled is just too far imo.

I think OnStar is a little creepy, myself, and I wouldn't want someone to hear what I'm saying in my vehicle or my home. Despite the fact that it may make things "easier" for us, I still don't want it affecting me when I'm not at work.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: armatron

Where I live (northwest of atlanta) revenue from traffic tickets is huge. There is an enforced qouta (with huge public outcry). imo it's bullsh!t. around this time (end of the month) I and my coworkers/friends regularly get pulled over for doing 8-10 over and ticketed. That's ridiculous. it's also a matter of time before the "feds" start banking on this income as well.

Quotas have been found to violate the U.S. Constitution, and are therefor highly illegal. Everybody thinks that police have quotas...it's simply not true. You think it's ridiculous for getting ticketed for speeding? And how can the feds get revenue from running traffic?

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: armatron

Where I live (northwest of atlanta) revenue from traffic tickets is huge. There is an enforced qouta (with huge public outcry). imo it's bullsh!t. around this time (end of the month) I and my coworkers/friends regularly get pulled over for doing 8-10 over and ticketed. That's ridiculous. it's also a matter of time before the "feds" start banking on this income as well.

Quotas have been found to violate the U.S. Constitution, and are therefor highly illegal. Everybody thinks that police have quotas...it's simply not true. You think it's ridiculous for getting ticketed for speeding? And how can the feds get revenue from running traffic?

The police here have qoutas in that for every 10 people they stop they are expected to give a ticket to 7 (or some number similar to that) It is argued by our local gov't that this isn't a direct qouta... it's indirect and therefore legal.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: judge

Originally posted by: MichaelD
George Orwell's 1984 is coming; it's just about 30 years late; it'll start around 2014.

With the recent advancements of GPS, "blackboxes", unnecessary litigation and "onstar" type vehicle enhancements, it's only a matter of time before your driving habits and your vehicles will be completely under the watchful eye of your insurance company, the cops (local and otherwise) and any other entity with "the need to know."

I will live to see Big Brother happen. I'm not happy about it.

I refuse to buy a car with, gps, blackboxes, onstar etc.

You already own one. Air bag systems have data event recorders (black box).
http://www.newsday.com/news/lo...?coll=ny-li-columnists

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: armatron
The police here have qoutas in that for every 10 people they stop they are expected to give a ticket to 7 (or some number similar to that) It is argued by our local gov't that this isn't a direct qouta... it's indirect and therefore legal.

So what is forcing them to pull people over in the first place? Sounds like that "quota" is more a requirement that the cops don't pull people over for frivolous reasons to harrass them.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: judge

Originally posted by: MichaelD
George Orwell's 1984 is coming; it's just about 30 years late; it'll start around 2014.

With the recent advancements of GPS, "blackboxes", unnecessary litigation and "onstar" type vehicle enhancements, it's only a matter of time before your driving habits and your vehicles will be completely under the watchful eye of your insurance company, the cops (local and otherwise) and any other entity with "the need to know."

I will live to see Big Brother happen. I'm not happy about it.

I refuse to buy a car with, gps, blackboxes, onstar etc.

You already own one. Air bag systems have data event recorders (black box).
http://www.newsday.com/news/lo...?coll=ny-li-columnists

Nope. Can't say that I do. Only "event recording" on my vehicle is an ECU flag for "Airbag deployed"

This flag is cleared by removing power to the ECU -it's volatile.

 

[imported_judge]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: judge

Originally posted by: MichaelD
George Orwell's 1984 is coming; it's just about 30 years late; it'll start around 2014.

With the recent advancements of GPS, "blackboxes", unnecessary litigation and "onstar" type vehicle enhancements, it's only a matter of time before your driving habits and your vehicles will be completely under the watchful eye of your insurance company, the cops (local and otherwise) and any other entity with "the need to know."

I will live to see Big Brother happen. I'm not happy about it.

I refuse to buy a car with, gps, blackboxes, onstar etc.

You already own one. Air bag systems have data event recorders (black box).
http://www.newsday.com/news/lo...?coll=ny-li-columnists

my car don't have black box . Air bag system can easily be reset but black box can't so i don't have black box

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: armatron
The police here have qoutas in that for every 10 people they stop they are expected to give a ticket to 7 (or some number similar to that) It is argued by our local gov't that this isn't a direct qouta... it's indirect and therefore legal.

So what is forcing them to pull people over in the first place? Sounds like that "quota" is more a requirement that the cops don't pull people over for frivolous reasons to harrass them.

that's the county's excuse. At the end of the month it's a fact that I and my friends get pulled over much MUCH more often

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: armatron

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: armatron
The police here have qoutas in that for every 10 people they stop they are expected to give a ticket to 7 (or some number similar to that) It is argued by our local gov't that this isn't a direct qouta... it's indirect and therefore legal.

So what is forcing them to pull people over in the first place? Sounds like that "quota" is more a requirement that the cops don't pull people over for frivolous reasons to harrass them.

that's the county's excuse. At the end of the month it's a fact that I and my friends get pulled over much MUCH more often

OK, ignore the last part and focus on the first part - if their only "quota" is that a certain percentage of their traffic stops must result in tickets, what is forcing them to make x number of traffic stops in the first place? They could make only 10 traffic stops all month, hand out 7 tickets, and they'd meet the quota requirements.

Personally I think the idea of remote disabling devices for cars is unneccessary, and I'm sure people would find ways to override them. I don't know any statistics but I imagine high speed car chases make up a relatively small percentage of crimes, and the expense of adding these devices to every car sold in the U.S. wouldn't be justified. I'd rather spend the money mounting RPGs on the hoods of police cars so they can end the car chases quickly and without a lot of hullabaloo.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Phoenix police had one cop car totaled, and another 4 damaged, plus 2 or 3 non-police vehicles damaged a few weeks ago by one guy who tried to run from the cops. That cost the tax payers a couple shiney pennies.

We've had 2 pursuits in 2 weeks here, which resulted in several damaged cars as well. It all comes out of our transportation budget, which is pre-set by the city council based on tax revenue.

Originally posted by: armatron
YOU might not; but "others" might. It's also not really pertitent whether you have the time; it's whether it is possible.


Also; being a local cop, you probably don't care to "see" or "hear" whether you can or can't.

The Feds don't give a sh!t, because they don't run traffic. Local police are often too busy handling calls for service, so we don't run traffic much during peak hours (and even when we do it's easy enough to find something without audio/visual survaillance). Maybe Highway Patrol would get some use out of it, but I can't imagine anyone else using it extensively.

I don't think cops should even bother chasing cars when they don't have a good crime to pin on the person.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Probably demonstrating a "targeted EMP device" - which are pretty much vaporware at the commercial law enforcement level.

- M4H

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I don't think cops should even bother chasing cars when they don't have a good crime to pin on the person.

You think we just chase people for traffic tickets? I lot of the time a warrant is involved, or even DUI.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: armatron
The police here have qoutas in that for every 10 people they stop they are expected to give a ticket to 7 (or some number similar to that) It is argued by our local gov't that this isn't a direct qouta... it's indirect and therefore legal.

That's really not a quota, but I don't agree with the restriction on Officer discretion.