Persistent Aerial Surveillance

pattimagee · PostJan 25, 2021#262021-01-25T15:50+00:00

There were a few moments of self reflection in the Radiolab that I thought encompass the weirdness of this program really well.

"There is a clear tradeoff between security and privacy. And ya know, in our major cities where we have ten's of thousands of crimes, we're a lot less free because we can't leave our houses at night."

"When you are talking about these privacy technologies, the advantages are always so concrete, but the trade-offs are always so abstract."

I couldn't find the other one to quote, but she's the one the most against it. But she basically highlights her white privilege and how its so easy to criticize something that she's not necessarily dealing with in her whiter neighborhood. Seeing the split of votes on the BOA echo the same sentiment, almost.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#272021-01-25T16:13+00:00

Does the plane work at night?

urban_dilettante · PostJan 25, 2021#282021-01-25T16:34+00:00

^ they have the cameras for it: https://www.pss-1.com/sensors

i think somebody mentioned that they'd be flying 18 hrs/day so that would imply some night flying.

PostJan 25, 2021#292021-01-25T16:46+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021
wabash wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021
dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021

And a judge is going to look at that and say what in court?
Whether or not it is allowed to be entered into evidence for the jury to consider.
the example above isnt good since the plane would have to stop tracking at the City border with Illinois, same goes with the border with St.Louis County

the camera sees whatever is in its 25 sq mi FOV. it can't just not see across municipal boarders. they'll probably fly so as to limit viewing outside of the city as much as possible but there's going to be some. and if IL or STL County law enforcement wants to use that information and STL City is willing to share it, I don't see what would stop them other than targeted legislation.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#302021-01-25T16:53+00:00

What altitude do the planes fly at?

urban_dilettante · PostJan 25, 2021#312021-01-25T16:54+00:00

pretty annoying that the surveillance discussion got separated into a new thread, seeing as how it's directly related to the BoA discussion (and the comments opposing surveillance got to remain, for some reason). shouldn't the comments in opposition be moved to the new thread as well?

PostJan 25, 2021#322021-01-25T16:55+00:00

^ ~10,000 ft.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#332021-01-25T17:25+00:00

How many planes will be flying at the same time?

Laife Fulk · PostJan 25, 2021#342021-01-25T17:47+00:00

From what I can find, just one.

BellaVilla · PostJan 25, 2021#352021-01-25T17:49+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021
wabash wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021
dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021

And a judge is going to look at that and say what in court?
Whether or not it is allowed to be entered into evidence for the jury to consider.
the example above isnt good since the plane would have to stop tracking at the City border with Illinois, same goes with the border with St.Louis County

The example is perfectly fine. What's wrong is your asinine assertion that STLPD will be mistaking dogs for cars.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#362021-01-25T17:52+00:00

I saw a map with three boxes. Is that three planes or?

Laife Fulk · PostJan 25, 2021#372021-01-25T18:02+00:00

Could you link to this pic? Can't speak to what you're describing, but in some of the articles I've found they refer to "the plane" and not multiple planes.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#382021-01-25T18:11+00:00

Guess this answers my question

wabash · PostJan 25, 2021#392021-01-25T18:14+00:00

Looks like Skinker-Debaliviere, West End and Riverview are off the hook.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#402021-01-25T18:15+00:00

What is the effective area seen at a given moment? At 10,000 feet altitude a 40 foot building will obscure the street if it's 3 miles away. That's assuming 25 foot setback and 35 foot street.

urban_dilettante · PostJan 25, 2021#412021-01-25T18:38+00:00

wabash wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021
Looks like Skinker-Debaliviere, West End and Riverview are off the hook.

it's just an example. the ROIs can move around in real time.

PostJan 25, 2021#422021-01-25T18:44+00:00

quincunx wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021
What is the effective area seen at a given moment? At 10,000 feet altitude a 40 foot building will obscure the street if it's 3 miles away. That's assuming 25 foot setback and 35 foot street.

the perspective isn't stationary, though. the planes can react to calls for support in real time, like a search helicopter. yes, not every square inch of the city is going to be visible at all times, but there's no such perfect solution except maybe a billion dollar satellite geosynchronously parked over the city. most likely the altitude is optimized for the camera resolution.

PostJan 25, 2021#432021-01-25T18:49+00:00

just a thought, but it's somewhat ironic that we all cheer the $2 billion dollar investment that the National Geospatial Actual-Spy-Agency is making in St. Louis, but a surveillance plane to stop hundreds of people form being murdered in the city every year is just a bridge too far.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#442021-01-25T18:51+00:00

Would the planes be flying on a day like today?

addxb2 · PostJan 25, 2021#452021-01-25T18:53+00:00

Is there any evidence this worked in Baltimore?

From my time searching news articles, I see just a mess of legal with no actual claims that it prevented or solved cases. Not to mention the noise complaints.

The Baltimore to St. Louis political conversion is 1.5x. So a legal mess in Baltimore is a St. Louis legal disaster.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

urban_dilettante · PostJan 25, 2021#462021-01-25T19:04+00:00

^ this is actually my main concern. if you throw up enough legal hurdles it's really difficult to asses its effectiveness and really easy to claim that it's ineffective. i suspect this has been the case to some extent in previous attempts as well. just give them a year or two with minimal interference and if it doesn't work then don't renew the contract. i feel like everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill, on principle.

PostJan 25, 2021#472021-01-25T19:52+00:00

quincunx wrote: ↑
Jan 25, 2021
Would the planes be flying on a day like today?

again, i don't know what this contract would entail but they have cameras suited to clouds, fog, etc.

quincunx · PostJan 25, 2021#482021-01-25T20:00+00:00

Do the flight paths out of Lambert conflict with its operations?

St. Louis Lambert Flight Paths.png (995.42KiB)

urban_dilettante · PostJan 25, 2021#492021-01-25T21:06+00:00

not sure if these questions are in good faith anymore, but i can't imagine that has not been considered. the company has operated in other cities with major airports.

wabash · PostJan 25, 2021#502021-01-25T21:11+00:00

Should the full name of the initiative be changed to Persistent Aerial Safety Surveillance Gateway Area Strategy?

Persistent Aerial Surveillance

Choose Display Mode