Quantcast
California startup unveils gun technology for cops - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 24, 2014, 03:51 PM   #1
JRH6856
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2011
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 3,549
California startup unveils gun technology for cops

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...589909207.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.
__________________
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" US Constitution, 2A, 1791
“Rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests." Rachel Maddow, 2013

The only thing you can count on being set in stone is your epitaph...if you're lucky
JRH6856 is offline  
Old October 24, 2014, 04:14 PM   #2
aarondhgraham
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 28, 2012
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
Posts: 894
They can make the technology,,,

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

.
__________________
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond,,, (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old October 24, 2014, 09:21 PM   #3
MErl
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1,072
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.
MErl is offline  
Old October 24, 2014, 09:38 PM   #4
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,642
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
__________________
"Don't rock the boat; the only way we ever achieve change is by doing absolutely nothing...over a long period of time"

"I just took an action to change the law"
--President Barack Obama on exceeding his authority, 11/25/2014
Now, how about we get the next guy to stop enforcing the NFA in its entirety? Precedent and all that...
barnbwt is offline  
Old October 24, 2014, 10:27 PM   #5
BobTheTomato
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 1, 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 520
Quote:
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.
__________________
That would seem to come under the heading of "OOPS"

Never crimp your blasting caps with your teeth.

-Dr. Haycocks
BobTheTomato is offline  
Old October 24, 2014, 10:59 PM   #6
CWL
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 6, 2003
Posts: 6,446
GSM based. Will need cell towers to operate.

Roll into a parking garage or into a terrain depression and your connection goes out.
__________________
Vae Victis
CWL is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 12:02 AM   #7
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,642
"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 )

TCB
__________________
"Don't rock the boat; the only way we ever achieve change is by doing absolutely nothing...over a long period of time"

"I just took an action to change the law"
--President Barack Obama on exceeding his authority, 11/25/2014
Now, how about we get the next guy to stop enforcing the NFA in its entirety? Precedent and all that...
barnbwt is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 02:40 AM   #8
splithoof
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2010
Posts: 964
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.
splithoof is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 03:14 AM   #9
RetiredUSNChief
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 9, 2012
Location: SC (Home), VA (Work)
Posts: 3,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
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.
__________________
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." Ash - Army of Darkness http://youtu.be/0xwzdd-Slo8

I'm the guy with a cannon, too: http://youtu.be/X6xhYELYVDw
RetiredUSNChief is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 03:24 AM   #10
CWL
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 6, 2003
Posts: 6,446
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.
__________________
Vae Victis
CWL is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 10:40 AM   #11
JRH6856
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2011
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 3,549
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" US Constitution, 2A, 1791
“Rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests." Rachel Maddow, 2013

The only thing you can count on being set in stone is your epitaph...if you're lucky
JRH6856 is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 12:14 PM   #12
Zach S
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 1, 2003
Location: Western NC/East TN
Posts: 5,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt View Post
"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 )

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.
__________________
"The 1911 does not limit a shooter. A shooter limits the 1911." - XavierBreath

"The problem with the 1911 today is that so many people have been trying to outsmart John Browning for so long, they really believe they have." - 1911Tuner
Zach S is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 02:44 PM   #13
316SS
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 27, 2004
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt
"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.
__________________
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
-Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by 316SS; October 25, 2014 at 03:03 PM.
316SS is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 04:10 PM   #14
FAS1
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 2, 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRH6856 View Post
http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...589909207.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."
__________________
Glenn
www.fas1safe.com
"The Fast and Secure One"
Facebook: FAS1 SAFE
FAS1 is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 05:26 PM   #15
RetiredUSNChief
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 9, 2012
Location: SC (Home), VA (Work)
Posts: 3,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWL View Post
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.
__________________
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." Ash - Army of Darkness http://youtu.be/0xwzdd-Slo8

I'm the guy with a cannon, too: http://youtu.be/X6xhYELYVDw
RetiredUSNChief is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 06:20 PM   #16
brickeyee
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 25, 2005
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
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.'
brickeyee is offline  
Old October 25, 2014, 07:32 PM   #17
JRH6856
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2011
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 3,549
Quote:
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.
__________________
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" US Constitution, 2A, 1791
“Rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests." Rachel Maddow, 2013

The only thing you can count on being set in stone is your epitaph...if you're lucky
JRH6856 is offline  
Old October 27, 2014, 04:58 AM   #18
CWL
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 6, 2003
Posts: 6,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredUSNChief View Post
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?
__________________
Vae Victis
CWL is offline  
Old October 27, 2014, 08:14 AM   #19
Al Thompson
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: December 21, 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,485
As this is only vaguely inline with THR's mission, I'm going to call it "asked and answered".......
__________________
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHATS BEYOND IT
Al Thompson is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.