I'm reserving judgement on the cause and effect of why property crime is down. I certainly won't take the police at their word that drones and surveillance measures and tough prosecution is the...
I'm reserving judgement on the cause and effect of why property crime is down. I certainly won't take the police at their word that drones and surveillance measures and tough prosecution is the answer (so please fund more of those things so we don't have to get out of our police cruisers and don't try to elect any DA who might prosecute cops again!). I expect that those measures do have an impact, but I want something more than just the police saying so to gauge how much and if alternatives could have accomplished similar results or if the marginal effect is worth the societal costs. SF cops aren't that different, if different at all, from cops everywhere else in the US.
These issues also tend to get weighed with a priority structure of personal property > poverty > state overreach which feels short sighted and egoist. I get that it's mostly human nature but makes me a little grouchy regardless.
I'm not sure how you can prove something like that. You'd need to find the people who were gonna commit crimes but didn't and expect them to admit it and to answer honestly that it was the drones...
I'm not sure how you can prove something like that. You'd need to find the people who were gonna commit crimes but didn't and expect them to admit it and to answer honestly that it was the drones that dissuaded them. Proving it's better than the alternatives would be even harder.
There's lots of evidence that could be presented, eg differences between different jurisdictions or comparing before and after of different policies/tools becoming available at a more granular...
There's lots of evidence that could be presented, eg differences between different jurisdictions or comparing before and after of different policies/tools becoming available at a more granular timescale. Some analysis might also be talking to people perpetrating crime, people are generally less conniving than you expect (I'd missed the rapper quotes in the original article and I do count that as evidence of it working).
If we can't have some proof that one tool is better than another other than just an appeal to the (IMO) dubious authority of the police then I'd err on not giving them the tool - especially in the current environment.
Edit: I did a search and car break ins were already in decline with articles like this one (https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/sf-car-break-in-data-18639763.php) coming out in February 2024, a whole month before Prop E enabled drone use (and which presumably would have taken some time to actually get used in earnest afterwards).
The current climate in the US is that there is very little oversight and most cops are very trigger-happy. Some because they are genuinely bad people. Some because the country literally has more...
The current climate in the US is that there is very little oversight and most cops are very trigger-happy. Some because they are genuinely bad people. Some because the country literally has more guns than citizens, so they assume everyone's armed.
Drones circumvent the problem because they can stop that car jacking without anyone getting shot. From your comment you seem to dislike the police, do you seriously prefer it if an actual officer was there instead of the drone? Especially if the car-jacker is black?
In general if you experiment with new policy to improve something, and you see clear evidence of improvement (by that I mean hard data, like in this case), it's wise to continue that policy. If the policy stops working, or we get new evidence/research, the policy should be reconsidered.
But throwing away something with evidence, just because you want even more evidence, is unwise. I do agree with you more research is needed though.
SF, compared to other California cities, has lower violent crime rates and strict gun laws. I won't say that police have no need to fear for their safety, but I very much doubt that car jacking...
SF, compared to other California cities, has lower violent crime rates and strict gun laws. I won't say that police have no need to fear for their safety, but I very much doubt that car jacking and car break ins involve much risk (especially on a relative basis than other crimes or cities). I don't buy that drones do anything measurable when it comes to reducing the risk to police. A cop somewhere is still going to have to be physically present to do the arrest.
If drones help with racial injustice, great! That's afaict not an argument that the police or this article are making so it wasn't something I was arguing against. It can absolutely be a factor in weighing the merits of the policy if you (or the police or some other third party) want to provide evidence for it having that effect. I for one don't think that, absent evidence to the contrary, drones make encounters between police and racial minorities happen any less often or with any less animus. Drone and other surveillance is perfectly capable of mistaking identities or misinterpreting events or being viewed through the same perspective police have when dealing with them in person. AFAIK no cops are stopping their normal activities in exchange for drone or surveillance, this stuff is just additive.
As fot the later part of your comment, my point is that the article posted here presents a downwards trend (present already before the drone policy changed, see my edit above) and quotes that imply drones are the cause. That is a very mild form of evidence being presented and we should require better of our decision makers if that's all they have. Better evidence might be available, but it's not from this article alone.
I don't dislike drones and additional surveillance for want of more evidence, I dislike them because they're easily co opted into the authoritatian regime we currently live in. There's mountains of actual hard evidence about misuse of flock, drones being used to surveil protests, or tracking people for a host of bad reasons. I think it's unwise to simply accept that maybe reducing car burglaries is good enough justification to allow more encroachment unto authoritarianism. There's a slim chance that I might if the evidence presented for their utility was very, very good - or at least I'd accept that this is a tradeoff that society broadly might be willing to make and instead I'd better spend my time tackling the issue from a different angle.
Car break-ins are as old as cars, but bipping, as a regional media spectacle and viral moment, belongs to the Doom Loop era. Consider the evidence: Reports of auto burglaries peaked in 2017, while Google searches for “bipping” didn’t spike until seven years later. This came after bipping — rumored to be either an onomatopoeia for the sound a hammer makes when it taps on glass or a police acronym for “burglary in progress” — found its way onto T-shirts and into the lyrics of local rappers.
[...]
Car break-ins rose dramatically in the 2010s, with more than 30,000 recorded in 2017, according to San Francisco Police Department data. Since then, annual tallies have been gradually falling, and in the last two years, they’ve decreased by more than 75%. There were fewer than 1,800 reported car burglaries in the first half of 2026 — an average of around 10 per day. That may seem like a lot, but in 2017, the daily average was around 85.
The police attribute bipping’s heyday to a lack of enforcement technology and a district attorney unwilling to prosecute perpetrators. Burglars knew they could smash windows, grab electronics and other valuables, quickly sell them to black-market dealers, and likely never get caught. Less than 1% of car burglaries over the last decade led to a conviction. But Dreamllife Rizzy is right: Those days are over.
[...]
The SFPD increased patrols in bipping hot spots like Fisherman’s Wharf starting in 2023. Cops also started using bait cars and building cases against major bipping gangs. In 2024, the department deployed its network of Flock cameras, and voters increasingly more concerned about public safety than privacy approved Proposition E, which allowed the SFPD to use drones and other types of surveillance technology.
“We are able to swiftly identify crews moving throughout the city, follow them, and make arrests when it is safe and feasible,” SFPD spokesman Evan Sernoffsky said. “Word is spreading among the criminal element that we will catch them and arrest them.”
[...]
Not everyone is so enthusiastic about the new surveillance tech, of course. The Standard reported last year that local police were sharing their license-plate reader data with other agencies, which could violate state law. Sernoffsky said the SFPD does not use Flock cameras for immigration enforcement or share its data with state or federal agencies. Elsewhere, cops are using Flock cameras for increasingly dubious arrests (opens in new tab).
And in San Francisco, auto glass shops are suffering as fewer people need their windows replaced.
The dark and deadly serious film follows a pair of brothers, Juju (Reed Shannon) and Slim (Zach Sowers), as they navigate the criminal underworld of San Francisco. Slim is a promising basketball player with his choice of scholarships, while his brother Juju becomes wrapped up in a crew of thieves who use spark plugs and brute force to smash their way into car windows. The film feels like something of a modern day interpretation of the 2004 drama “Sucker Free City.” The movie was co-directed by Alex Ferrufino alongside San Francisco rapper and Cookies cannabis entrepreneur Gilbert Anthony “Berner” Milam Jr. (Berner also has a co-writing credit alongside David Mansanalez).
I'm reserving judgement on the cause and effect of why property crime is down. I certainly won't take the police at their word that drones and surveillance measures and tough prosecution is the answer (so please fund more of those things so we don't have to get out of our police cruisers and don't try to elect any DA who might prosecute cops again!). I expect that those measures do have an impact, but I want something more than just the police saying so to gauge how much and if alternatives could have accomplished similar results or if the marginal effect is worth the societal costs. SF cops aren't that different, if different at all, from cops everywhere else in the US.
These issues also tend to get weighed with a priority structure of personal property > poverty > state overreach which feels short sighted and egoist. I get that it's mostly human nature but makes me a little grouchy regardless.
I wouldn't say this is a more reliable source, but apparently there are rappers are saying it's the drones too?
Which rappers? /j
I don't know anything about them but the articles I shared mentioned a few.
I'm not sure how you can prove something like that. You'd need to find the people who were gonna commit crimes but didn't and expect them to admit it and to answer honestly that it was the drones that dissuaded them. Proving it's better than the alternatives would be even harder.
There's lots of evidence that could be presented, eg differences between different jurisdictions or comparing before and after of different policies/tools becoming available at a more granular timescale. Some analysis might also be talking to people perpetrating crime, people are generally less conniving than you expect (I'd missed the rapper quotes in the original article and I do count that as evidence of it working).
If we can't have some proof that one tool is better than another other than just an appeal to the (IMO) dubious authority of the police then I'd err on not giving them the tool - especially in the current environment.
Edit: I did a search and car break ins were already in decline with articles like this one (https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/sf-car-break-in-data-18639763.php) coming out in February 2024, a whole month before Prop E enabled drone use (and which presumably would have taken some time to actually get used in earnest afterwards).
The current climate in the US is that there is very little oversight and most cops are very trigger-happy. Some because they are genuinely bad people. Some because the country literally has more guns than citizens, so they assume everyone's armed.
Drones circumvent the problem because they can stop that car jacking without anyone getting shot. From your comment you seem to dislike the police, do you seriously prefer it if an actual officer was there instead of the drone? Especially if the car-jacker is black?
In general if you experiment with new policy to improve something, and you see clear evidence of improvement (by that I mean hard data, like in this case), it's wise to continue that policy. If the policy stops working, or we get new evidence/research, the policy should be reconsidered.
But throwing away something with evidence, just because you want even more evidence, is unwise. I do agree with you more research is needed though.
SF, compared to other California cities, has lower violent crime rates and strict gun laws. I won't say that police have no need to fear for their safety, but I very much doubt that car jacking and car break ins involve much risk (especially on a relative basis than other crimes or cities). I don't buy that drones do anything measurable when it comes to reducing the risk to police. A cop somewhere is still going to have to be physically present to do the arrest.
If drones help with racial injustice, great! That's afaict not an argument that the police or this article are making so it wasn't something I was arguing against. It can absolutely be a factor in weighing the merits of the policy if you (or the police or some other third party) want to provide evidence for it having that effect. I for one don't think that, absent evidence to the contrary, drones make encounters between police and racial minorities happen any less often or with any less animus. Drone and other surveillance is perfectly capable of mistaking identities or misinterpreting events or being viewed through the same perspective police have when dealing with them in person. AFAIK no cops are stopping their normal activities in exchange for drone or surveillance, this stuff is just additive.
As fot the later part of your comment, my point is that the article posted here presents a downwards trend (present already before the drone policy changed, see my edit above) and quotes that imply drones are the cause. That is a very mild form of evidence being presented and we should require better of our decision makers if that's all they have. Better evidence might be available, but it's not from this article alone.
I don't dislike drones and additional surveillance for want of more evidence, I dislike them because they're easily co opted into the authoritatian regime we currently live in. There's mountains of actual hard evidence about misuse of flock, drones being used to surveil protests, or tracking people for a host of bad reasons. I think it's unwise to simply accept that maybe reducing car burglaries is good enough justification to allow more encroachment unto authoritarianism. There's a slim chance that I might if the evidence presented for their utility was very, very good - or at least I'd accept that this is a tradeoff that society broadly might be willing to make and instead I'd better spend my time tackling the issue from a different angle.
https://archive.is/rRfZv
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
Also: A dark thriller about San Francisco car break-ins is selling out theaters