NYPD Can Now Shoot GPS Trackers at Your Car | Hacker News Reader

NYPD Can Now Shoot GPS Trackers at Your Car

jalopnik.com

80 pointsmhb80 comments

Prediction: the NYPD is never going to actually use this thing. Maybe some vastly improved future iteration, but not this one.

> the NYPD has invested $19,500 on the Guardian-HX venture.

That's pocket change to the NYPD. It's not clear from the article what "invested" means, but they probably bought and handed out a small number of launchers to a few officers to see if they prove useful. I'm skeptical that they will.

> That projectile travels at a claimed 37 miles per hour, and has a straight-forward range of 35 feet — though the company claims that, with an arc, it can theoretically reach 60 feet.

Good luck hitting a moving vehicle with that.

> Good luck hitting a moving vehicle with that.

It's not like police already doesn't care about accuracy when shooting at vehicles.

The only thing this seems likely to hit is the ground.

I think you’re probably right about them not actually using this but the implications of the capability are more interesting. There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well, but it also has the potential to reduce the number of dangerous pursuits.

> it also has the potential to reduce the number of dangerous pursuits.

I agree that it does in concept, I just can't see them reliably tagging vehicles with a launcher as anemic as this one. The speed and range of the projectile is significantly less than an average healthy adult could achieve by throwing it.

The only situation I can think of where it would maybe work is at a DUI checkpoint. An officer could be standing next to the vehicle with the launcher, ready to fire as soon as it starts to move. Even then they'd better be quick about it.

The should get a launcher in the hood of a squad car instead. In pursuit they can tag following and then peal off.

For anyone not aware, this does actually exist. If you look on youtube there are a few examples of police using vehicle-mounted launchers in real chases. [1][2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJTYQx5qMlc [Florida State Police/Highway Patrol]

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2H9A8kV-zA [Austin Police]

Interesting, the devices in both those videos are made by the same company that makes the handheld launcher from the article.

If NY is like some Toronto, I imagine traffic is so bad that vehicle chases dont really happen anywhere near the center/important parts of the city, which is why they are focusing on hand held devices.

The only situation I can think of where it would maybe work is at a DUI checkpoint

We don’t do those in America - you might catch someone actually important!

You aren't going to the right party neighborhoods ;)

I've seen them in the US (rarely). I think they just mostly just bury any record of it when someone important enough gets caught. More common are the checkpoints near the boarder where they stop people "just because"

I don't know what percentage of car chases are of professional criminals, but reliance on GPS device like this to end a car chase might allow them to evade capture. GPS jammers are apparently cheap and easy to make, and someone who's stealing cars or robbing might be unconcerned with also comitting an FCC violation. If the cops shoot one one and hang back enough for the suspect to get out of sight, they could lose the person they're chasing once the jammer is enabled.

https://hackaday.com/2020/09/08/teardown-mini-gps-jammer/

https://greetwin.en.made-in-china.com/product/LFyTJkOHwCcd/C...

Since these use adhesive, they might also be able to be defeated by a dirty vehicle.

I wouldn't take it for granted that these actually use GPS at all, let alone exclusively (e.g. they might also use cell tower or BSSID triangulation). It's pretty common to use "GPS" generically for other methods of automated geopositioning.

I think "professionals" just avoid a car chases in the first place? My take is that most people trying to outrun the cops aren't going to be so highly technical and well prepared.

(as a digression: GPS jamming might not be the best approach, but that depends on what the StarChase does. It would probably make more sense to jam its transmission capability, which presumably relies on cellular, rather than try to jam its GPS reception capability. If GPS is effectively blocked but the device can still transmit it could still attempt to locate you using cell towers or wifi BSSIDs.)

> There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well...

Like what? This technique seems like it would be one of the least troubling, from a privacy perspective, since a tracking device that was shot at the exterior of your car will be one of the easiest to find and remove later. I'd be much more worried about tracking devices hidden under the car or in a wheel well.

I agree that this is better than the police breaking into people's property and installing GPS without the owner being aware of it. I imagine a lot of problems with this new tech will be on the backend, with GPS or the software passing that data on to officers giving incorrect or imprecise location data leading to innocent people being harassed or killed.

"Shoot at it" seems to be the default response to everything for police in the US, and I could see this causing innocent people, innocent people's vehicles, or other property being hurt or damaged by poorly aimed or entirely unnecessary shots.

Just last week it was reported that police showed up at the wrong house for a domestic violence incident and killed the (armed) homeowner. So I can see a lot of accidental takedowns with this tech.

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-police-wron...

> There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well

Under Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Antoine Jones (2012) [0], attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is a search, and requires a warrant. A fancy delivery system doesn’t seem to change the Constitutional parameters.

[0] https://www.gps.gov/news/2012/01/supremecourt/#:~:text=10%2D....

Police generally need a warrant to enter someones house too for the same reasons. However, if they chasing someone or there imminent danger they can enter someones house not search it, but it is only to deal with chasing the person or preventing the imminent threat.

The only reason I see police deploying this would be to avoid a high speed chase. Where that ends up constitutionally I don't know not a judge or lawyer, but it is one of those imminent danger/pursuit situations the courts have carved for other circumstances.

Now I will say if the police follow someone they are chasing into an other persons house and in that house see drugs. Under most circumstances that could not be used as evidence against the person that lived in the house since they did not have a warrant to search for drugs in the house. Their only legal reason to be there was to catch someone, so anything unrelated to that narrow purpose generally can't be used in court.

It could change them due to “hot pursuit”. You generally don’t need a warrant when you’re in hot pursuit.

You don’t need a warrant to enter a home or similar property to effect an arrest when you are in hot pursuit of a subject who you have probable cause (in a situation not requiring a warrant) to arrest because, in that context, the entry is not a search.

I don’t see how that helps here, because the whole point of putting a GPS tracker on a car is to allow abandoning hot pursuit in favor of (what has been determined to be) a search.

It might work if you can get one officer ahead of the vehicle, waiting for when it goes by, and shoot as it's coming toward you or passing close by. This should be pretty easy if the suspect is driving down, say, an interstate. Call ahead and have someone waiting for him to pass by.

Edit: By "easy" I mean easy to call ahead, not necessarily to hit with the tracker.

Look for a coyote and a roadrunner nearby.

All of the tools the coyote used tended to... explode...

Sounds like the PIAT in A Bridge Too Far. It clearly needs to go faster.

     No. It can't be. Someone is shadowing him. Right off his left flank. A person on a skateboard rolling down the highway right behind him. The Deliverator, in his distracted state, has allowed himself to get pooned. As in harpooned. There's a big round padded electromagnet, on the end of an arachnofiber cable. It has just thunked on the back of the Deliverator's car and stuck. Ten feet behind him, the owner of this cursed device is surfing, taking him for a ride. Skateboarding along like a water-skier behind a boat.

    The Mechanical Hound slept but did not sleep, lived but did not live in its gently humming, gently vibrating, softly illuminated kennel back in a dark corner of the fire house. The dim light of one in the morning, the moonlight from the open sky framed through the great window, touched here and there on the brass and copper and the steel of the faintly trembling beast. Light flickered on bits of ruby glass and on sensitive capillary hairs in the nylon-brushed nostrils of the creature that quivered gently, its eight legs spidered under it on rubber padded paws.

Interesting this is built on an AR-15 lower receiver, with the detachable magazine being a battery.

I'd think it would be a lot easier and cheaper to build one of these from the ground up instead of using a real not-electric firearm

If the government is investing in you they might have a lot of surplus gear you can use for a reduced cost. And it's attractive to tell police forces that they don't have to train marksmanship on a entirely new platform for your device.

I mean, you can get 6packs of lower receivers as a civilian for like what amounts to 30 bucks each.

They are not expensive.

Why? AR lowers are ludicrously cheap and common. You're going to need a generally "rifle-like" form factor for ease of use, so why not go with the most common design, and save money on things like pistol grips, buttstocks, etc?

And the manual of arms is known to everyone who'll be using it.

I imagine it's deliberate appeal to the demographic.

AR-15 lowers are pretty cheap. Seems like ~$60 on the cheap end at consumer (non-wholesale) prices. That's without a buffer spring and stuff, but I don't think this thing even uses/needs those.

There are some advantages to it, though. The article calls out accessories being interchangeable. The company doesn't have to make/sell different stocks and what not, people can just buy their existing favorites for the AR-15.

The ergonomics are probably more familiar (e.g. adjusting the length of the stock, where the safety is, etc).

You could also theoretically use the same lower for both this and an actual AR-15, although I doubt the utility of that. Most police departments probably have enough cash to just buy both.

Someone who doesn't understand economies of scale. You know how many ar-15 lowers are made every damn day in this country? They are cheaper than a dozen eggs at this point.

what if the tracker scratches/dents/damages your car? How does the GPS unit adhere? does that leave a residue? Are they going to pay for that??

I'm assuming if you're not actively trying to get pursued by a law enforcement official this isn't a problem.

I might be wrong, but it's my impression people can get their doors kicked in and their computers seized, returned 6 months later with hard drives wiped. No recourse, or very slow and painful.

And your money stolen without being returned

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/24/1165822372/afroman-police-rai...

horse shit! LEO can miss and hit someone elses car.

Also, just because you are being pursued doesnt mean you are guilty of a crime.

Cops can be creeps.

If the tracker hits your car you'll probably be guilty of stealing[1] law enforcement property.

[1]https://futurism.com/cops-charge-man-stealing-gps-tracker

No, you wouldn't, because theft requires mens rea.

Good luck at your upcoming criminal jury trial.

I guess I'll hire Heuring's lawyers instead of a public defender, because he was the intended target of his GPS tracker, and he ultimately beat the theft charges and the entire search warrant.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/removing-a-gps-t...

Keep in mind that this is the country where people have been charged with destruction of property for bleeding on police uniforms while being beaten. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-cau...

And those charges were dropped -- they weren't found guilty.

Anybody can be charged with anything. It does not mean they will be convicted.

Oh, okay, good thing that being charged and not convicted has no adverse impacts in this country.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/15/atlanta-jail...

This is basically a NERF gun. In the vanishingly unlikely event that you need to, you can file a claim for damage to your vehicle.

It's not a bullet. It's a nerf dart and only flies about 35 feet. If you are close enough to get hit by one of these, you're already in a fucking dangerous situation and should probably not just drive home like nothing happened. Also if they wanted to track you, they already can, and this really doesn't help them in any particular way. Hidden GPS devices have been around for years now.

because its not possible for two people to have a grey honda accord heading southbound on I61

It's a problem for everyone because police make mistakes pretty frequently. All that it requires is them mistaking you for a suspect or following the wrong car, going to the wrong house, etc. Every technology should be considered in how it can be misused, instead of assuming everyone that uses it will be honest and infallible.

This is an alternative to the PIT maneuver or spike strips, which are all much more destructive. Generally speaking, police are legally permitted to use force to compel compliance.

I think the problem is that it will likely be viewed as less destructive and used in cases where they would not have does a pit maneuver.

Like a taser, in theory it is great to have a LESS lethal option than a gun, but if it is used in cases where they never would have used a gun, you might argue it was a net loss. Arguably, police should probably not use a taser if they do not feel threatened. But on the flipside if they feel threatened, they absolutely should be shooting them with real bullets, so the taser certainty has cost police officers their lives when they thought it would be a good enough deterrent and it turned out not to be.

Also, you can only have so much gear.

> Are they going to pay for that??

No, when the cops damage your property, you're free to pay a lawyer to tell you that you'll lose in court.

So true. Like the time the literally ripped my buddy's front door off it's hinges, and pointed a gun at his small child, only to find they were in the wrong apartment. Zero recourse, in what you'd think would be a slam dunk. At least the apartment complex didn't charge him for the damages.

I don't even understand what the proposed use case for this is. Is it supposed to be that you're in a car chase and rather than continue a dangerous pursuit you shoot this thing at the suspect and then just go find them later? Won't they notice and just stop and dispose of the tracker unless you're hot on their tail?

You could follow from a safe distance (or go parallel to the suspect) and track until air support is in place, or set up a few road blocks and box the suspect in. By the time you stop and remove the tracker, the police could just catch up and shot another pair of trackers.

Car chases have been banned in large cities because they often lead to injuries to bystanders and cops and then gigantic lawsuits. So yea the plan now is to find them later and I guess gpsing the car could help.

Exactly for making car chases less necessary. Just get in range to shoot, shoot and then track the fleeing car more safely from a distance.

For $20k they probably only got a few devices - possibly 1. What are the odds that the police officer with one of these few devices is the officer nearby when a pursuit happens? And they have a partner in their car ready to use the device? Effectively zero.

I think this would be better implemented as a drone which could smash into the car and have the same tracking abilities. Then it could be launched by any officer even if they're not within 35 feet of a car, perhaps steered autonomously or by an officer back at the precinct, or even dropped from a police helicopter.

Rather than worry about this little tracking peculiarity, my mind wanders to a future where the govt is smart/capable/evil enough to be connecting all the cameras in buildings, cars, etc. into one place that constantly monitors for license plates and is able to tell:

-- anyone who has been driving around with a car registered in another state but hasn't relocated it to that state within a month (avoiding taxes -- CA I'm looking at you)

-- backtracking where someone who committed a crime came from, and has gone

-- etc.

Maybe somewhere this is already being done.

I think this is already the norm in Israel. Your every move is monitored on CCTV.

It’s already the norm in the US too. License plate readers have existed for like, a decade, and most cop cars I see in my state have them visibly mounted.

Doesn't need to be cop cars. Many tow truck companies have agreements to mount these sorts of cameras for the police.

You mean Palantir?

This is a thing already. Planes flying in circles above major US cities with dozens of cameras recording time lapses.

The geolocation warrants being served against Google are also pretty similar. Come up with all the phones in the area when the fire was set, etc.

https://radiolab.org/episodes/eye-sky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare

Charles Strauss wrote about that in the atrocity archives.

I think you mean Stross

I did, and I am pretty sure that's what I typed in. However Auto correct succeeds just enough that I don't proofread what it's done to me often enough: (

I saw a recommendation about this DigitalproHackz, from a comment section and he offers any hacking services. He’s the greatest I’ve seen so far, you can get in touch with him through digitalprohackz @ gmail com assistance, he’s very good.

Everything else aside, this is pretty sci-fi

Future subreddit: /r/starchase_hacks

I am less concerned about the NYPD and other de jure police and sheriff departments having this, and more concerned when they get into the hands of civilians that are creepy men stalking ex-wives and underage women.

Considering the history of effective oversight and regulation of local police, there’s no difference between the two groups you described

Sorry to be the one who brings you up to speed, but this is just adding one more option for both the gov and civilians to track people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_Reveal

As for randos tracking women, or anyone, this is already happening

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1080944193/apple-airtags-thef...

https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/modified-airtags-us...

and trackers are a dime a dozen it seems, complete with cellular data plans

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gps+tracker+for+vehicles

> > That projectile travels at a claimed 37 miles per hour, and has a straight-forward range of 35 feet — though the company claims that, with an arc, it can theoretically reach 60 feet.

This launcher doesn't seem very capable of hitting a moving vehicle, in spite of what their marketing might imply. It would be much easier and more covert to just use an Airtag, which stalkers already do.

You can actually just buy GPS+Cellular trackers off Amazon already. And they are far far more discrete than this literal soup can sized tracker that the NYPD would be using.

People aren't gonna buy weird, single-purpose, short-range tracker-launchers when they can just stick the tracker on the car when nobody's looking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com