Persistent Aerial Surveillance Systems Gateway Organization for Observational Study Execution
I am wondering if its technical and operational constraints and deficiencies render it ineffective.
- 3,762
^ ok. fair enough. i'm sure operational constraints and results vary from situation to situation. some of the results, though, (e.g. the Juarez example) are extremely convincing IMO and speak to its potential.
- 9,674
And it’s dead. The foundation that was going to pay for it said it will now not pay for it
In a statement provided to the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday, Arnold said, "After months of implementation, evaluation and preliminary research, we have decided against further investments in the program at this time. Therefore, Arnold Ventures will not fund the aerial investigative effort proposed in St. Louis.”
In a statement provided to the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday, Arnold said, "After months of implementation, evaluation and preliminary research, we have decided against further investments in the program at this time. Therefore, Arnold Ventures will not fund the aerial investigative effort proposed in St. Louis.”
- 3,762
^ unfortunate. another missed opportunity in a long and ever-growing list of them.
- 760
Welcome to STL, where new ideas come to die and nothing ever changes. NOTHING.
Stltoday - No money for aerial surveillance in St. Louis, Texas philanthropists say
persistent-aerial-surveillance-t12051-s50.html
persistent-aerial-surveillance-t12051-s50.html
- 760
Do the Democrats who run this city really care about all the African Americans who are shot and killed in this city? I wonder sometimes.
- 9,674
^ TBD but we know that the republicans that run the state sure don’t.
- 443
You'd think a 7yr old's murder in the streets of our swankiest neighborhood might encourage people to try new things, but no. People like DbInSouthCity and Tony Messenger were ready with their Trumpian rhetoric. "Spy Plane, Spy Plane!"
St. Louis: Afraid to try anything new (even though nothing we've been trying for the last fifty years works either).
It can feel slow sometimes, but recently I've been amazed how much change St. Louis is experiencing. The CWE and Grove continue to completely transform, Cortex is an entirely new destination for corporate citizens, helped by a public-private partnership for a mass transit station (which is new for the region), BPV has changed the dynamics of Downtown development and nightlife, Shaw and TGS are transforming into high end single family neighborhoods, Botanical Heights continues to completely transform, SLU FINALLY seems to be getting the right idea for development in the post-Father Biondi era (including partnering with local developers for infill in The Gate, mentioned in another thread), the Loop has leapt eastward in recent years with major additions (Loop Lofts, Link in the Loop, Everly), the Debaliviere strip will be unrecognizable in 12 months time, Downtown will have two brand new bookends - the Arch Grounds and MLS Stadium, billions of dollars in construction and thousands of jobs are going into the St. Louis Place neighborhood, Wash U has completely transformed the east (City) end of its campus, Lafayette Square and Soulard are seeing multi-family infill projects on scales (100+ units) they've never seen before, etc, etc...whitherSTL wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021Welcome to STL, where new ideas come to die and nothing ever changes. NOTHING.
Many of those changes have their pluses and minuses, but a surprising amount of areas feel rather dynamic and in flux these days, which I think is important for any healthy City. However, if you're saying nothing changes politically, or in terms of crime issues, or race relations or the health of Northside neighborhoods, I'm not going to disagree.
St. Louis is great at grasping at silver-bullet over-promise under-deliver ideas.
- 9,674
Not sure if STL is to blame for the foundation looking at the case study data from Baltimore and deciding that the juice isnt worth the squeezeframer wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021St. Louis: Afraid to try anything new (even though nothing we've been trying for the last fifty years works either).
Have we finally decided whether gentrification is a good or a bad thing?
- 3,762
True, but in this case the risk and expenditure was minimal compared to the potential benefits.quincunx wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021St. Louis is great at grasping at silver-bullet over-promise under-deliver ideas.
- 9,674
what were the benefits? this has been discussed here for a few days and on twitter for months and nobody can give us one damn independent study that shows the benefits
- 3,762
Agreed but, as I said before, the knee-jerk opposition to surveillance and the resulting protest and obstructionism have made it very difficult to assess its effectiveness.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021Not sure if STL is to blame for the foundation looking at the case study data from Baltimore and deciding that the juice isnt worth the squeezeframer wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021St. Louis: Afraid to try anything new (even though nothing we've been trying for the last fifty years works either).
the potential is clear from the successes (arrests, major drug cartel busts) discussed at the various media links earlier in the thread. and a lack of studies is not evidence for ineffectiveness. again, the potential benefits far outweighed the cost here. a ten-year contract for millions and millions of dollars wouldn't make sense given the dearth of studies. a 1–3 year trial contract at a cost of a few million, fully or partially funded by a donar, makes too much sense to pass up. (yes, i understand the donar retracted in this case.)dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021what were the benefits? this has been discussed here for a few days and on twitter for months and nobody can give us one damn independent study that shows the benefits
Understanding the slippery slope concerns for privacy, I do consider this an extreme measure for desperate times. Maybe it would be a deterrent if criminals knew they could be tracked fleeing from a murder scene.
I was at a neighborhood association meeting with Annie Rice and Christina Ingrassia earlier this week where this was heavily debated. Both had similar positions, along the lines of:
- Violent crime is a huge problem and we need to try different things, as whatever we are currently doing is clearly not working
- There are some natural privacy concerns regarding this
- This would probably generate a litigation nightmare as it has happened in other places such as Baltimore
- The way this was offered to the city by this Dr. McNutt was not particularly transparent and raised some concerns
Taken together they both thought the costs outweighed the benefits. They seemed to particularly emphasize point number 4, which reminded me of the whole discussion surrounding airport privatization: it is not obvious whether it's a good or a bad idea, but a lot of people seem to be put off by the lack of transparency surrounding the whole thing.
- Violent crime is a huge problem and we need to try different things, as whatever we are currently doing is clearly not working
- There are some natural privacy concerns regarding this
- This would probably generate a litigation nightmare as it has happened in other places such as Baltimore
- The way this was offered to the city by this Dr. McNutt was not particularly transparent and raised some concerns
Taken together they both thought the costs outweighed the benefits. They seemed to particularly emphasize point number 4, which reminded me of the whole discussion surrounding airport privatization: it is not obvious whether it's a good or a bad idea, but a lot of people seem to be put off by the lack of transparency surrounding the whole thing.
What’s everyone’s opinion on the private drone proposal for Gravois Park?
My initial thoughts…
1. Owners are entitled to operating their devices assuming they meet all local and national flight regs.
2. Efforts by legislators to limit ‘crime’ drones could inadvertently infringe on general users and could be unconstitutional.
3. Citizens are not entitled to privacy in public. Drones are already used to monitor traffic patterns.
4. I see value in additional surveillance. Ultimately will depend on the quality of operators and business model. People didn’t like street level security cameras initially, now we all forget they’re there.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... -top-story
My initial thoughts…
1. Owners are entitled to operating their devices assuming they meet all local and national flight regs.
2. Efforts by legislators to limit ‘crime’ drones could inadvertently infringe on general users and could be unconstitutional.
3. Citizens are not entitled to privacy in public. Drones are already used to monitor traffic patterns.
4. I see value in additional surveillance. Ultimately will depend on the quality of operators and business model. People didn’t like street level security cameras initially, now we all forget they’re there.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... -top-story
- 1,802
There is no constitutional right to flying a drone. Congresss could ban them tomorrow.