The Future of Crime Detection: Satellites with HD Zoom, Brain Scans, AI Analysis
Ultra HD satellite surveillance, brain scans, sensors everywhere?
I may be putting the cart before the horse here and am probably far too early… but I envision a future wherein we’ll have the ability to catch criminals with near precision… such that we probably won’t need to waste as much time in court giving people “due process” because it will be clear whether they’ve committed the crime.
No need for a woke lawyer or jury to argue against it.
Are serious criminals caught more frequently now than the past?
My guess? I thought they would be. I let ChatGPT-5-Thinking answer this for me… (I was wrong).
“Caught” (in U.S. stats) = case “cleared by arrest” (or by “exceptional means”), not convicted. (FBI 2017)
Homicide today is not cleared at 1960s levels. The FBI reported ~93% cleared in 1962; rates fell for decades, hit a low near ~49% in 2021, and improved in 2023–2024 but remain well below the 1960s high. Early 2024 estimates put murder clearances around the low 60s nationally, and ~44% of violent crimes (all types) were cleared in 2024. Tech helps—but it has not produced across-the-board “higher than the past” clearances. (Cook & Mancik, 2024)
Why Criminals Get Away With More Now…
My thought: A lot of this is due to woke creep as a result of prey mentality/pathological empathy resulting in changes to the laws to protect criminals.
I had ChatGPT summarize my perspective below…
A cascade of privacy expansions, prosecutorial burdens, de-facto decriminalization, and expansive post-conviction challenges has reduced certainty and swiftness of punishment, lowering clearance and conviction rates.
Investigative Handcuffs
2018 – Carpenter v. U.S.: Warrants now required for cell-site data.
2024 – Geofences curbed: Fifth Circuit labeled broad geofence dragnets unconstitutional “general warrants.”
2023 – Google Location History: Moved to encrypted on-device storage, closing a major data pipeline.
2024 – Ring: Ended police request portal; warrants needed per doorbell video.
Net effect: Evidence that once took hours now takes days/weeks; more time for evidence decay and suspect flight.
Prosecution Gauntlet
NY 2020 discovery reforms: Massive, rapid disclosures or cases risk dismissal.
Speedy-trial outcomes: Misdemeanor dismissals rose 9% → 49% (2019–2024).
Bail changes: Broad elimination of pretrial detention for many felonies → more flight/re-offense.
Declination policies: Progressive DAs (Philadelphia, LA, SF, Chicago) decline entire offense categories despite statutory illegality.
Net effect: Prosecutors drown in paperwork; violent offenders walk on technicalities.
Decriminalization by Stealth
CA Prop 47 (2014): Theft < $950 downgraded to misdemeanor; other states followed.
Federal shifts: Mandatory minimums for drug offenses weakened; “second-look” sentence cuts.
Early release: COVID accelerations never fully reversed; time-served % down across violent categories.
Net effect: Theft/drug/quality-of-life offenses effectively under-enforced; shorter actual custody.
Post-Conviction Relief Industry
Forensics under Daubert fire: Bite marks, hair, even fingerprints challenged.
Endless collateral attacks: Post-conviction DNA + ineffective-counsel claims multiply habeas petitions.
Expert testimony trends: Trauma memory, diminished capacity, coerced confession theories raise doubt.
Net effect: Trials lengthen; appeals/habeas extend litigation 5–10 years post-verdict.
The Cumulative Disaster
Police: Weeks to secure warrants for routine digital/video evidence.
Prosecutors: Burdened into dismissals while serious offenders exploit procedure.
Enforcement: Low-level crimes and drugs often unprosecuted; sentences served shrink.
Aftermath: Years of appellate churn create durable “reasonable doubt.”
Ideology/Ethos
Operational ethos: Better to free the guilty than risk any contact with the potentially innocent—prioritizing offender safeguards over community safety.
Comparative Models
Singapore: Swift, certain punishment; near-zero tolerance for violent crime.
El Salvador (Bukele): 75,000+ gang arrests; ~92% homicide drop in ~3 years.
Implication: Citizen-first enforcement outperforms “compassion-first” procedure.
Result: The West now uses advanced tech to identify offenders—then funnels them through a procedural maze that maximizes escape routes. The result is less justice, not more.
How tech still makes some offenders more catchable (2025)
Phone/location trails now routinely place people at scenes or link co-conspirators (CSLI, app logs, Wi-Fi/Bluetooth). But courts require cleaner process (see below).
DNA at scale: CODIS holds ~18.6M offender and ~6.0M arrestee profiles; ~762k hits have aided ~739k investigations (as of June 2025). Rapid DNA can produce a booking-room profile in 1–2 hours. (FBI.gov)
Gun linkage: ATF’s NIBIN generated ~217k investigative leads in FY2024, letting agencies tie shootings and guns across cases. (ATF)
Vehicles as breadcrumbs: ALPR networks (e.g., Flock) claim 20B+ reads/month across 5,000+ communities; “real-time crime centers” stitch cameras, ALPR, and dispatch in one feed (D.C. cites 28,000+ public/private cameras).
Other reasons crimes aren’t efficiently solved in the U.S.
Three big buckets explain most of the gap.
1) Case-mix & cooperation (the biggest levers)
More gun/stranger cases = fewer witnesses, harder solvability. The long slide from the 1960s is heavily explained by the growth of firearm homicides in communities with low police–community trust—exactly the cases with the toughest witness cooperation.
Clearance math is unforgiving. When homicides surge (e.g., 2020–2021), the denominator jumps and clearances fall even if detectives are working the same; when murders fell ~15% in 2024, clearances tend to tick up—which we see in the 2023–2024 data.
2) Capacity & backlogs
Detective/lab bandwidth: Many agencies hit capacity limits during the 2020–2022 surge; labs in multiple states report months-long turnaround and rising backlogs (DNA, ballistics). Capacity drives clearance. (Stateline 2025)
3) The evidentiary bar for digital data is higher than a decade ago
Supreme Court privacy line:
Riley (2014): Warrant to search a phone’s contents. (Riley v. California)
Jones (2012): Attaching a GPS tracker is a “search.” (U.S. v. Jones)
Carpenter (2018): Historical cell-site records generally require a warrant. (SCOTUS)
Geofence warrants are now split by circuit, and the data pipe shrank. The 5th Cir. (2024) called geofences unconstitutional “general warrants,” while the 4th Cir. (2025) allowed evidence in Chatrie; meanwhile Google’s 2023 policy change moved most Location History on-device with E2E-encrypted backups, making broad dragnets much harder. Net: more paperwork and narrower pipes, not “can’t investigate,” but slower and more litigable. (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Is the problem woke judges, lawyers, juries or law changes?
According to ChatGPT… No.
Clearance happens before court. It measures arrest/identification, not convictions or jury behavior. Courtroom policies affect trial outcomes, but they don’t directly lower “caught” rates. The long-run decline is far better explained by case mix, cooperation, staffing, and lab throughput.
Discovery & “paperwork bar” (New York example). NY’s 2020 discovery reform raised compliance demands; speedy-trial dismissals surged for misdemeanors (NYC: 9% → 49% from 2019–2024), but indicted felonies were ~0.1% dismissed in 2024—i.e., the biggest effects weren’t on serious indicted cases. That’s process, not solvability. (Data Collaborative for Justice)
Bail reforms (NJ, IL) didn’t cause broad crime spikes. The best research so far finds no clear link between bail reform and higher crime; New Jersey’s 2017 reforms did not increase gun violence, and early Illinois reads show effects “less dramatic than feared.” Again, that’s pretrial detention policy, not whether police can make an arrest. (Drexel University)
Some Supreme Court rulings actually reduced defendant leverage.
Vega v. Tekoh (2022): you generally can’t sue officers for using an un-Mirandized statement (less civil leverage). (Supreme Court)
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (2022): sharply limits new evidence on federal habeas for ineffective counsel claims (harder post-conviction relief). (Supreme Court)
Net: Today’s “bar” is higher for how police collect digital evidence (warrants, geofences under scrutiny), but the main reasons serious cases don’t all get cleared are who/where/how the crimes happen and capacity constraints, not juries or “woke” judges tossing everything.
One more nuance: private cameras (Ring, etc.)
Policy moved, then partly moved back. Jan 2024: Ring ended its in-app police “Request for Assistance” tool (warrants still worked). 2025: via an Axon integration, departments can again post Community Requests for user footage—optional for owners; warrants still compel. So it’s not “Ring won’t allow it” so much as a different, more scrutinized pipeline. (AP News)
If the goal is “more serious offenders caught,” what actually moves the needle (*ACCORDING TO CHATGPT-5-Thinking*):
Add detectives + lab capacity (DNA/ballistics turnaround).
Exploit gun linkages (NIBIN) + ALPR/camera networks—but do it with clean warrants so evidence sticks.
Boost witness cooperation & protection where violence clusters.
TL;DR: Thanks to phones, DNA, ALPR, and RTCCs, many serious offenders are easier and faster to catch than 10–20 years ago—when the crime leaves digital exhaust and agencies have capacity. But as a national average, we’re still below the 1960s’ sky-high clearance rates. The biggest levers aren’t “woke courts”; they’re case mix, community cooperation, staffing, lab throughput, and doing the digital-evidence paperwork right.
Note: Everything above was ChatGPT-5-Thinking’s answer. I know it has extremely woke filters so while I trust its output… I realize it is constrained by its woke sandbox. I’m sure this is not the best answer it could give. I think it’s not so much woke judges, juries, lawyers as it is wokeness that has made the entire conviction process more challenging and less efficient for police/prosecutors.
I think that while crime has technically been “dropping” in the U.S. — it’s probably still higher than what most people would think. (Read: U.S. Crime in 2025: Misleading Data)
The Future of Crime Detection (What I Envision)
I started thinking about how in the future you should be able to just scan someone’s brain and determine if they committed a crime.
But then I thought deeper about this and how brain scans will not suffice because if criminals know this they will just modify/manipulate their brain activity post crime if possible.
So you need more data/signals than just a brain scan (which may not even be accurate).
HD Cameras everywhere (e.g. Ring doorbell cams): China already has this figured out. Mass surveillance state. Kind of sucks if you have an overbearing government like the CCP… but it’s good for safety. I recall reading about somewhere in New Jersey installing cameras everywhere to catch criminals and it was met with serious backlash because most of the criminals were blacks… but this shouldn’t be controversial. If you commit crimes and it’s detected on camera you get arrested and locked up.
Gunshot detection technology: This has already been used in Chicago but apparently is cost inefficient. Detects gunshots well but the ROI allegedly isn’t there to justify continued use. Perhaps if the cost comes down?
DNA analysis: AI determines propensity of criminality based on a DNA sample. Can likely get this extremely accurate if people wanted. People concerned about “ethics” are fucking retarded and are the same types who would rather get mugged than be called a bigot or something.
Miscellaneous sensors everywhere: Probably things I’m not even thinking of. Recent iPhones already have some sort of LiDAR scanning. Perhaps homes will be equipped with some sort of advanced internal scanning (e.g. WiFi, Bluetooth, mmWave combos), robotaxis will be always cycling around, robots will be walking around, sensors may be in the ground or detecting neighborhood activity from street lights, etc.
Physiognomy scans (?): I suspect physiognomy is at least a rough proxy for genotype/phenotype. This is controversial but my logic goes: gene combo of individual manifests unique physical features (face shape, bone structure, distance between eyes, etc.) and extended phenotypic expression (e.g. face/neck tats, specific piercings, body mods, etc.). It’s the combination of everything that likely can detect whether someone is “high risk” vs. “low risk” of committing crimes. We can’t arrest anyone before they commit crimes anyway… but why not focus on those flagged as high risk (more efficient policing).
Ultra HD satellite zooms (blockchain): Satellites that track everything happening in one’s country at all times. Think of all the satellites being launched into space. Think of Google maps and HD zoom right now. In the future you should be able to zoom in ultra-HD to detect every person, animal, and insect movement outdoors at all times… literally never stops.
Brain scans (possibly via BCIs): Rapid scans of people’s brains while questioning or just in general with memory extraction (if possible via Brain-Computer Interfaces). May present a clear algorithm of guilty vs. not guilty for an advanced AI.
Voice stress biometrics: Advanced real-time AI voice analysis can detect micro-fluctuations in vocal patterns that are undetected by humans to increase accuracy in detection of lies/stress from suspects. This can be employed to analyze all conversations with suspects (even phone conversations).
Gait analysis networks: Distinctive biometric markers that are difficult to consciously alter. Modern AI can identify individuals from walking patterns captured on video with 90% accuracy even with faces obscured. This could be integrated with all the other detection systems I’ve proposed.
Facial biometrics (eye, mouth, cheeks, etc.): Analyze the suspects eye patterns/movements during interviews if possible. Can examine micro-changes in facial expressions as well (e.g. slight twitch, mouth movements, tongue movement, lip movements, wincing, etc.).
Infrared/thermal surveillance (heat signatures): We should have complete thermal coverage from satellites and ground sensors detecting all heat signatures through walls in real-time. Every building’s thermal footprint gets continuously scanned and uploaded on-chain. Anomalies like unusual heat patterns (e.g. body decomposition, meth labs, illegal gatherings) should get flagged instantly for potential analysis.
Targeted through-wall radar: An active system that emits radio waves/mm-waves that penetrate walls and bounce back to reveal movement, shapes, and positions inside buildings. This gives more detailed information than thermal (can see if someone is holding a weapon, exact positioning, movement patterns, etc.)
Quantum sensors: Miniaturized sensors that detect changes in magnetic fields, gravity variations, electromagnetic anomalies. Useful for finding concealed weapons, underground activity, hidden electronics, etc.
Chemical sensors: Air quality sensors everywhere detecting ultra-fine changes (e.g. gunpowder residue, drug manufacturing emissions, explosives, stress pheromones, etc.). All uploaded on chain 24/7 if possible.
mmWave, WiFi, Bluetooth scans 24/7 (blockchain): Could be a requirement. Completely anonymized and uploaded to the blockchain similar to the HD camera system. Data verified by multiple oracles to ensure accuracy. Only accessed if a serious crime occurs in the area and when could be useful to an investigation.
Chainlink-esque databases of footage/data: Ideally you have many independent HD satellites and surveillance systems that cannot be accessed for certain locations unless there is a crime that happens. If a crime happens everything can be closely examined/scrutinized. You have oracles independently verify footage (e.g. Company A satellites should agree with B & C footage uploaded to the blockchain – verified by something like Chainlink). This makes it more difficult for woke lawyers to fight for criminals.
Truth serums and/or stimulators: For any suspects involved and anyone else who may have information related to the crime/criminal. Perhaps there will be some highly effective form of “truth serum” or “truth stimulator” (e.g. stimulate specific brain regions to force truth telling) in the future.
Wearables during questioning: For all potential suspects can use holistic biomarker outputs coupled with brain scans to get a good idea of whether someone is guilty of a crime. Combine things like HRV, heart rate, blood pressure, EEG activity, etc. May not be perfect but in the context of everything else may be useful.
Holistic AI analysis of physiology/biometrics: I’d guess that if you feed some sort of advanced AI all the data to paint a holistic picture (e.g. Ring footage, HD satellite footage, cell phone pings, DNA, phenotype, wearable footprint of physiology during questioning)… you can likely have near or 100% confidence you have the correct criminal.
What criminals of the future will likely try to do…
Hack security/surveillance cameras: Criminals will try to hack more frequently so that they aren’t detected by surveillance.
Premeditated coverups: Most criminals are extremely low IQ so we probably wouldn’t need to worry much about them trying to obfuscate data to cover up their crimes. The entire obfuscation would likely be detected and make them look even more guilty. Perhaps some wizard could find a way to manipulate all known data (e.g. hack local doorbell cams, run a series of drones, etc.).
Digital noise campaigns: Organized criminal networks and gangs might deploy swarms of drones, deepfakes, and other digital noise/EMF interference to overwhelm surveillance systems during actual crimes (e.g. signal interference for the satellites).
Deepfake alibis: Criminals may create synthetic evidence and/or spoofing campaigns using AI generated video, audio, location data, et al. to establish false alibis. As deepfake technology becomes more accessible, sophisticated criminals could fabricate entire digital footprints showing they were somewhere else during crimes.
Memory erasure/modification: Many will try to alter, erase, distort, and/or modify their memories prior to a truth serum and/or brain scan. This may involve some sort of medication/pill regimen, futuristic memory wiping technology, etc. It’s possible that some technology will emerge that allows them to completely wipe memory of crimes they’ve committed such that when questioned they have zero recollection of anything.
Claim manipulated data: Most will argue that data from HD satellites, mmWave/WiFi/Bluetooth, etc. has been manipulated and cannot be trusted. They’ll claim that brain data are inaccurate (from brain scans)… and claim that any they’re innocent. (“You gotta believe me!”)
Modify DNA: Advanced gene therapies may enable rapid DNA modifications. This could potentially create a chameleon type wherein they can rapidly transition between criminal and prosocial person. Not sure why people would want to do this though… but it’s a possibility that warrants consideration.
Deliberate physiology manipulation: Consciously manipulate heart rate, blood pressure, eye blinks, gaze, etc. during interviews. Smarter criminals (not that there are many… criminality correlates strongly with low IQ) may utilize stealth tattoos or some other signals that they are part of some gang (IDK).
Modify physiognomy (?): Probably not. Most criminals can’t resist the face/neck tats, hair dye, tattoos/piercings, etc. They want other antisocial entities to think they are cool or whatever. Most criminals are extremely low IQ and I’d guess that most with face/neck tats can be followed closely and they commit much higher than average crime… likely also own pitbulls. GTA phenotype.
Partner with wokes: Advocating for more privacy, less surveillance, less “snitching,” CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) type places, etc. Essentially exploiting prey mentality and pathological empathy/altruism for criminals. You can see that certain groups have no tolerance for crime, whereas others have ineffective policing (Hispanic countries, Southeast Asian countries, African countries, many Arab countries, etc.). White countries are now afraid to arrest people and when they do the criminals are entitled to free defense and benefit from woke laws, lawyers, judges, juries that attempt to protect them. (Oh he’s mentally incompetent – let’s let him back on the street… Oh he didn’t mean to shoot someone – it was an accident!)
Note: Just look at the woke cult the Innocence Project that tries to free criminals from prison. Even celebs like Kim Kardashian try to do good and their pathological empathy is exploited by a lot of low IQ sociopaths/psychopaths with fake sob stories. Look at the guy Sheldon Johnson who went on Joe Rogan advocating for rehabilitation only to kill someone 38 days later. (Can’t even make this up. Was fairly predictable.) (Read: NYT: Sheldon Johnson Champion of Rehabilitation to Murderer)
The Future of Crime Conviction? It Should be AI.
An AI judge with zero jury based on an algorithm that has the highest degree of accuracy (regardless of how it achieves the accuracy). We don’t care if you perceive the algorithm as biased, racist, etc. — if it can prove that its accuracy is far beyond current human levels… we’d be foolish to object.
Currently juries are highly biased based on a variety of factors including: age, race, sex, political leanings, etc.
If you are a white person on trial in a primarily black district, data suggests the deck is stacked against you… a primarily black jury has much stronger bias against non-blacks than a jury of mostly whites. (Diversity Destroyed the Jury System)
If you are a black person on trial in a primarily white progressive district, they’ll probably feel bad for you and you have a reasonable chance of exploiting their pathological empathy depending on the level of evidence.
Ideally we take humans out of the equation and agree on some sort of objective AI system to make rulings based on all evidence presented.
Perhaps only in complex cases would AIs call in a second backup AI and/or a human panel that is compensated for participation and has proven to be completely objective and focused on the evidence/facts (rather than some weird biases).
People will fight this tooth and nail though… you’ll have people calling AI “ethically dangerous” and other dumb shit. Anyone who brings up “ethics” can just be dismissed as a fucking moron. It’s a non-argument and subjective.
They don’t have a good reason so they spam “ethics.” Whose ethics? Your woke retard ethics? Ahh ok so you want your woke retard ethics. Gotcha… you want to protect criminals. Their brain self-destructs when they have to think critically about Singapore, China, and the new gang crackdown in El Salvador.
My ethics: locking up violent criminals as efficiently as possible and extracting as much value from them as possible (e.g. hard labor, reasonable medical experimentation, organ harvesting) and/or efficiently ending their existence if they took someone else’s life.
These days you could have footage of some guy committing rape but his lawyer argues that he is intellectually disabled (IQ at or below 70)… and then releasing him back into society… what do you think happens?
Who would be against an advanced futuristic crime detection system?
A few groups that I can think of…
Criminals: If you aren’t committing crimes none of your data are accessed… everything remains fully anonymized on a quantum resistant blockchain… nothing to worry about.
Brainwashed wokes: Pathological empathy… they feel bad for criminals. Many feel worse for criminals than the victims because the victims are dead or out of sight/mind.
Certain jobs/orgs: If your job depends on fighting for criminals (e.g. woke lawyer, woke judge, Innocence Project, etc. – I’m not familiar with how many orgs cater to criminals but I’d imagine many do directly and indirectly)… then you’ll probably be against this. You don’t want the criminals locked up because it threatens your income.
Terrorist orgs: I’d also guess that terrorist groups wouldn’t like it much. Could monitor all their activities.
Propagandists: We’d see what’s really going on/transpired between Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, etc. Would be far more objective proof of things than taking random users’ words for it on X.
Extreme libertarians: People who value privacy for criminals over safety at all costs even if the system were 100% accurate, decentralized, and only accessed in highly specific cases via the blockchain.