California startup unveils gun technology for cops


PDA






JRH6856
October 24, 2014, 02:51 PM
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141024/us--gun_technology-9589909207.html


Oct 24, 4:04 AM (ET)

WATSONVILLE, Calif. (AP) A Silicon Valley startup has developed technology to let dispatchers know when a police officer's weapon has been fired.

The latest product by Yardarm Technologies would notify dispatchers in real time when an officer's gun is taken out of its holster and when it's fired. It can also track where the gun is located and in what direction it was fired.

If you enjoyed reading about "California startup unveils gun technology for cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
aarondhgraham
October 24, 2014, 03:14 PM
They can make the technology,,,
But getting a cop to use it will be a different matter.

I see this as a "when hell freezes over" innovation.

Aarond

.

MErl
October 24, 2014, 08:21 PM
The holster part I can see as it doesn't require any modification to the gun. It is far less invasive than wearing cameras but probably not all that useful.

The rest of it I don't see catching on unless they are talking about an audio gunshot detector that is worn rather than attached to the gun. Nobody is going to want some beta hardware stuck to the gun they depend on.

Really though, if there is already a worn camera this is not necessary.

barnbwt
October 24, 2014, 08:38 PM
Is there a problem with officers firing their sidearms and not reporting it, or are we just throwing money at imagined problems again..?

An undefeatable (relatively) override of the 'off' switch of a body camera activated by removing the gun (or Taser, especially) from the holster would be a useful idea, however.

TCB

BobTheTomato
October 24, 2014, 09:27 PM
An undefeatable (relatively) override of the 'off' switch of a body camera activated by removing the gun (or Taser, especially) from the holster would be a useful idea, however.

Or just one that runs all the time. The only benefit that I see is that it would call for backup if an incident is occurring.

CWL
October 24, 2014, 09:59 PM
GSM based. Will need cell towers to operate.

Roll into a parking garage or into a terrain depression and your connection goes out.

barnbwt
October 24, 2014, 11:02 PM
"Or just [a camera] that runs all the time."
I'm not a fan of anyone being subjected to omniscient, unblinking information gathering on the job just for the fun of it. For something like a store clerk, where you more-than-half expect the bum at the register to dip from the till is makes sense; but as 'crude' as we sometimes like to think they are, police are professionals. That implies a certain level of trust for them to do their jobs without constant oversight is deserved, which I am more than willing to give so long as it is during times where camera footage is unlikely to be important. Just as I appreciate my company not placing a security camera over my screen at work to monitor what portion of the day my eyeballs are open :p --at some point it's important to focus on results and not how we go about getting them ('results' being the proper execution of the entire law-enforcement process in the case of police officers, and not merely convictions, of course ;))

TCB

splithoof
October 25, 2014, 01:40 AM
I can see this technology being used by California DOJ as an additional requirement for inclusion of the roster of approved handguns. Kamala Harris used micro-stamping technology as another hoop for manufacturers to jump through, so I imagine this will be no different. Just give them some time.

RetiredUSNChief
October 25, 2014, 02:14 AM
Is there a problem with officers firing their sidearms and not reporting it, or are we just throwing money at imagined problems again..?

TCB

Honestly...I don't think this is about police officers at all. Vetting such technology to the police is a darn good start at getting such technologies mainstream. And once they're mainstream, then comes the legal mandates for civilians.

Companies that come up with new technologies have to appeal to the commercial market in order to be come successful. This kind of technology simply has no market for civilian use...civilian gun owners aren't interested in this kind of gun control stuff at all, under any guise.

However, government agencies are another matter. Government agencies represent a special market place with different market drives. Skillfully targeting government agencies can provide a company with a ready-made market that will make such a venture profitable. Contracts for large numbers of such devices not only provide immediate income, they also provide a toe-hold into the conventional civilian market through advertising and political pressures.



I can see this technology being used by California DOJ as an additional requirement for inclusion of the roster of approved handguns. Kamala Harris used micro-stamping technology as another hoop for manufacturers to jump through, so I imagine this will be no different. Just give them some time.


"Just give them some time."

Exactly.


And anybody who doesn't see civilian gun control as part of the long term agenda is either incredibly naive, willfully blind, or simply lying. Consider what this example would mean to civilians:

"Yardarm's system would have triggered an alarm on an owner's cellphone if a gun had been moved, and the owner would then have been able to hit a button to activate the safety and disable the weapon."


Yep. Not only remote, realtime tracking, but remote disabling.

Most disturbing for civilian gun owners concerned about gun control.

CWL
October 25, 2014, 02:24 AM
Need to defeat this?

Pull the battery/ let the battery run down
Pull the unit out of the gun, leave it at home.
Wrap aluminum foil around the grip to block cell signal.
Buy cellular blocker from China over internet, turn it on.

JRH6856
October 25, 2014, 09:40 AM
However, government agencies are another matter. Government agencies represent a special market place with different market drives. Skillfully targeting government agencies can provide a company with a ready-made market that will make such a venture profitable. Contracts for large numbers of such devices not only provide immediate income, they also provide a toe-hold into the conventional civilian market through advertising and political pressures.

That is how it worked for Glock.

Need to defeat this?...

If it should ever be mandated for civilians, it will almost certainly be a felony at least to defeat or disable the technology, and the owner will be required to insure it is in working order at all times. It will be easy to do. If it allows remote trackiing and triggers an alamr when the gun is fired or moved, it can trigger an alamr when it goes offline.

Zach S
October 25, 2014, 11:14 AM
"Or just [a camera] that runs all the time."
I'm not a fan of anyone being subjected to omniscient, unblinking information gathering on the job just for the fun of it. For something like a store clerk, where you more-than-half expect the bum at the register to dip from the till is makes sense; but as 'crude' as we sometimes like to think they are, police are professionals. That implies a certain level of trust for them to do their jobs without constant oversight is deserved, which I am more than willing to give so long as it is during times where camera footage is unlikely to be important. Just as I appreciate my company not placing a security camera over my screen at work to monitor what portion of the day my eyeballs are open :p --at some point it's important to focus on results and not how we go about getting them ('results' being the proper execution of the entire law-enforcement process in the case of police officers, and not merely convictions, of course ;))

TCB

I doubt all the footage would be archived and/or watched. Important footage would be copied, and the rest overwritten. I really cant imagine someone watching all the footage from an eight to twelve+ hour shift just to look for nothing specific.

I'm not sure how bodycams work, but my dashcam records all the time, in five minute intervals. I can lock footage of interest with the push of a button, or it does it automaticly with the G sensor (which I have set too low at the moment). Old footage is overwritten automaticly.

In light of recent events, some of the LE pages I follow on facebook reccomended [this] or [that] bodycam. Turns out that a lot of officers had already purchased them on their own dime, and had first hand experience with the models suggested. They bought them to cover their six for BS complaints. One example is a New Mexico officer accused of sexual assault by an intoxicated woman who didnt want to be arrested.

316SS
October 25, 2014, 01:44 PM
"Or just [a camera] that runs all the time."
I'm not a fan of anyone being subjected to omniscient, unblinking information gathering on the job just for the fun of it. For something like a store clerk, where you more-than-half expect the bum at the register to dip from the till is makes sense; but as 'crude' as we sometimes like to think they are, police are professionals. That implies a certain level of trust for them to do their jobs without constant oversight is deserved, which I am more than willing to give so long as it is during times where camera footage is unlikely to be important. Just as I appreciate my company not placing a security camera over my screen at work to monitor what portion of the day my eyeballs are open --at some point it's important to focus on results and not how we go about getting them ('results' being the proper execution of the entire law-enforcement process in the case of police officers, and not merely convictions, of course )

I can't imagine an opinion on this subject more diametric to my own. I am a state-licensed professional, and I know that professional licensing schemes exist to protect the public from inept, unethical, or negligent professionals. The public is at the mercy of a professional, who is assumed to know far more about the subject of their profession than any layperson, and the stakes are often high, no more so than with police. Police have more personal authority than any other individual found in public spaces, and misuse of that authority can have serious consequences. I'm fully aware of the irony when I ask: If police officers have nothing to hide, why would they object to body cameras?

Edit: Gosh, it's easy to wander off-topic. The gadget OP linked to seems like an inelegant solution to a problem I'm not aware actually exists. And if it did, it could be better addressed with officer training than questionable technology.

FAS1
October 25, 2014, 03:10 PM
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141024/us--gun_technology-9589909207.html


Oct 24, 4:04 AM (ET)

WATSONVILLE, Calif. (AP) A Silicon Valley startup has developed technology to let dispatchers know when a police officer's weapon has been fired.

The latest product by Yardarm Technologies would notify dispatchers in real time when an officer's gun is taken out of its holster and when it's fired. It can also track where the gun is located and in what direction it was fired.

Don't be fooled. They are taking the acceptance of technology one step at a time after all the backlash about "Smart Guns".

Per the article: "The system will not include a remote disabling mechanism. Yardarm was pursuing that technology and demonstrated it at a conference in Las Vegas last year, but it has since abandoned (yea, sure. For how long?) that effort, according to the Capitola, California,-based company's marketing vice president, Jim Schaff."

RetiredUSNChief
October 25, 2014, 04:26 PM
Need to defeat this?

Pull the battery/ let the battery run down
Pull the unit out of the gun, leave it at home.
Wrap aluminum foil around the grip to block cell signal.
Buy cellular blocker from China over internet, turn it on.

Errr...no. Likely, such guns could be engineered to be non-functional in such instances. This isn't "defeating" it at all, when you think about it. What has happened in this case is you've given up the ability to use your gun at all by taking such actions.

And even if what you described works, what you've done is rendered your gun either temporarily inoperative or unreliable. Not a good thing for us...but a great thing for the gun control crowd.

brickeyee
October 25, 2014, 05:20 PM
Likely, such guns could be engineered to be non-functional in such instances.

And you will NOT get ANYONE to try them.

A simple jammer would disable the weapon.

The loudest sound in the world is a 'click' when you wanted a 'bang.'

JRH6856
October 25, 2014, 06:32 PM
A simple jammer would disable the weapon

No problem. They'll just pass a law against such jamming. Make it illegal, that'll stop it. :rolleyes:

CWL
October 27, 2014, 03:58 AM
Errr...no. Likely, such guns could be engineered to be non-functional in such instances. This isn't "defeating" it at all, when you think about it. What has happened in this case is you've given up the ability to use your gun at all by taking such actions.

And even if what you described works, what you've done is rendered your gun either temporarily inoperative or unreliable. Not a good thing for us...but a great thing for the gun control crowd.
You guys aren't understanding what I'm saying about defeating this.

If you wrap foil around the gun, it doesn't know that its connection has been blocked, it still is transmitting, but nothing is receiving the transmission. You could get the same result if you keep your firearms in a safe, or in the basement.

Besides, i don't see any way to engineer retrofits to existing firearms that include any means to mechanically disable the gun. So far, just implanting a reliable transmitter is already a problem. How often have you had a dropped call, or lost the signal with your cellphone?

Al Thompson
October 27, 2014, 07:14 AM
As this is only vaguely inline with THR's mission, I'm going to call it "asked and answered".......

If you enjoyed reading about "California startup unveils gun technology for cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!