To Drone or NOT to Drone?

[Monfang]

That is the question! For is it better to protect our homeland by using remote controlled aircraft systems to find those in need of help, fleeing criminals, and help guide officers. Or to protect our privacy from robots peeking over our privacy fences and into our bedroom windows?

This is the debate going on in the US. I won't use this to speak about the use of drones to launch strikes into other nations for that is a different debate. This is one focusing on the use of it by Police, Rescue and other public services to help them do their jobs faster and with more success.

Public Services have been asking for the technology sense the US military released it's designs and they were made cost effective by private companies. With these, you can have Game Wardens roaming the forests at a much faster pace to locate poachers. Mountain Rescue could locate those in need of help faster than a helicopter can such as stranded hikers or those caught in an avalanche. This technology could be used to find lost children, locate hidden criminals, aid in police chases, and many other uses that have yet to be explored.

However, Privacy Advocates have been arguing one thing, invasion of privacy. Talking about using these drones to 'see into backyards' and 'peek into bedroom windows'. They told us that the police would use them to scan the skies 24/7, watching us all the time whether we liked it or not. What little privacy you would get from the public spaces could be stripped away as these weaponized systems scanned your homes with infrared and night vision cameras before launching attacks without warning.



Now that the setting and here is my side. Privacy Advocates need to calm the hell down. This is the drone you might think of when you think of drones:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Scary isn't it? Look at all those missiles and bombs. It's a death machine! Here's what Public Services want to use:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Aww, it's so cute! Yes, that is from Britain, but it shows the actual size of these drones. They aren't weapons of war, but more of cameras on an extra large RC toy. Has the battery life of one too. As apposed to the Big bad Military drone, these little things can fly for maybe a few hours at most before it putters out. The one on the picture? 20 minutes, maybe. That's just long enough for a quick search or a scan of an area, but not enough to keep watch on you all day. Not to mention their range is very short, the controller has to be nearby or it flies on a preprogrammed flight. And it isn't going far anyway with that little range.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6676809.stm

Still, that can peek into bedroom windows and over privacy fences, right? Sure, and so can any Joe with a wireless camera and an RC toy, as I said that's all they are. There are actual RC toys that come with actual cameras built in. No one is attacking them. And if you are worried about people peeking into your backyard, better put a tarp up because I can go on Google Maps and see into it just fine. Or maybe rent a helicopter and just fly over town. There are cameras built that can see the blades of grass from a helicopter at it's max height.

All I see is fear mongering and an attempt to keep worthwhile tools out of the hands of people who just want to do a better job of protecting us.

[hippyness]

Although not such a big fan of this, personally there's not going to be any stopping these organizations from using the drones if they want to and can afford to. It's the American way.

Does anyone remember the huge fuss when the airports developed cameras that could see through clothing? There was a huge argument of privacy, security workers did in fact abuse the technology repeatedly and now no one really talks about it until another paid by the hour rent a cop checks out some girls boobs.

The drones are very different as they serve a useful purpose beyond taking nudie pictures, and it would take some work to use them in such a light, but I enjoy distopian future stories and I feel we are heading very quickly towards that.

[elone]

Search and rescue, yes. Border patrol, yes. Emergencies, yes.

Just flying around on patrol randomly over some town, I don't think so. If police want to use them, let there be a method of obtaining a warrant that outlines a specific use. We already have cameras peeking at is, drones step over the line. Also, when one crashes into my house, even the little ones, who is held responsible for that. Time magazine had an article about their lack of stability and reliability.

[Monfang]

Search and rescue, yes. Border patrol, yes. Emergencies, yes.

Just flying around on patrol randomly over some town, I don't think so. If police want to use them, let there be a method of obtaining a warrant that outlines a specific use. We already have cameras peeking at is, drones step over the line. Also, when one crashes into my house, even the little ones, who is held responsible for that. Time magazine had an article about their lack of stability and reliability.

I already stated that their battery life of these machines don't allow for random patrols no more than the cost to put a helicopter in the air allows them to patrol the skies all the time as it is now.

And the stability and reliability, if there is one as I haven't heard of any such problems, would be yet another reason why they won't be using them all the time and why they are only being brought in for trial runs.

[hippyness]

Also, when one crashes into my house, even the little ones, who is held responsible for that. Time magazine had an article about their lack of stability and reliability.

To quote a Mister Gil Grissom, "We don't do that."

If it crashes into your house, the operating precinct might by law be required to pay but there will be long drawn out law suits and cities not wanting to cover it and you having to prove there was no reason of the crashing.

[Oniya]

Search and rescue, yes. Border patrol, yes. Emergencies, yes.

Just flying around on patrol randomly over some town, I don't think so. If police want to use them, let there be a method of obtaining a warrant that outlines a specific use. We already have cameras peeking at is, drones step over the line. Also, when one crashes into my house, even the little ones, who is held responsible for that. Time magazine had an article about their lack of stability and reliability.

I like the idea of requiring a 'warrant' of sorts, thereby complying with the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search.  My sister does some S&R in the course of her paramedic work, and they were actually called out this morning to look for a missing teen.  (By the way, they already market RC toys with cameras in them, and you're far more likely to have the neighbors' kids using one of those to peek in your windows than the cops.)

[Monfang]

I like the idea of requiring a 'warrant' of sorts, thereby complying with the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search.  My sister does some S&R in the course of her paramedic work, and they were actually called out this morning to look for a missing teen.  (By the way, they already market RC toys with cameras in them, and you're far more likely to have the neighbors' kids using one of those to peek in your windows than the cops.)

The way the law is written, anything visable from the outside of the house is considered not to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

But I want to make sure this is clear, the technology as it stands now is not powerful enough to go from house to house peeking into windows. And even if it was, THAT would be considered something way too close to a door to door search and wouldn't be done for ethical reasons rather than legal reasons.

[Oniya]

The way the law is written, anything visable from the outside of the house is considered not to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

But I want to make sure this is clear, the technology as it stands now is not powerful enough to go from house to house peeking into windows. And even if it was, THAT would be considered something way too close to a door to door search and wouldn't be done for ethical reasons rather than legal reasons.

True, but if you're dealing with the ones that have IR capability, 'visible' takes on new parameters.  (Fun note:  If your neighbor looks in your window and sees you nude, they can not accuse you of indecent exposure unless you are specifically directing your attention/actions at the window as well.  Running to the kitchen and crossing in front of your front picture window while naked is not 'exposing yourself'.) 

[Monfang]

True, but if you're dealing with the ones that have IR capability, 'visible' takes on new parameters.  (Fun note:  If your neighbor looks in your window and sees you nude, they can not accuse you of indecent exposure unless you are specifically directing your attention/actions at the window as well.  Running to the kitchen and crossing in front of your front picture window while naked is not 'exposing yourself'.)

I have a feeling they would treat IR capability that can go though solid walls as going a bit far. That would require a warrant.

[hippyness]

The way the law is written, anything visable from the outside of the house is considered not to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

But I want to make sure this is clear, the technology as it stands now is not powerful enough to go from house to house peeking into windows. And even if it was, THAT would be considered something way too close to a door to door search and wouldn't be done for ethical reasons rather than legal reasons.

I think we are moving beyond the technology as it is now. I know I for one try to look to the future of this. Sure, as we post they flying camera can't last very long. But solar energy is slowly progressing, cameras are getting WAY too detailed and fancy (if you don't know there's a camera called Lytro https://www.lytro.com/camera that can take pictures that can be refocused after the picture is taken while some retail stores have HD security cameras) so these fears could manifest in the years to come when this drone has become too ingrained in police work to be stopped or removed.

[Monfang]

Sure, in the future it might be possible. However there is still the cost and the time required to do the things people worry about. And also about the law that would come into effect.

[hippyness]

What law would come into effect? (I may have missed or misunderstood a post if this has been covered)

[Beguile's Mistress]

According to USLegal.com and their comments regarding ownership of airspace it might be argued that just as a warrant or probable cause is necessary for physical search of private property the same might be required of drone search and observation.  It will probably take some legislative or judicial action to set precident for this.

The air is generally a public highway and the airspace overhead is part of the public domain[ii].  But, if a landowner is to have full enjoyment of his/her land, s/he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere[iii].  Accordingly, a landowner is protected against intrusions in the airspace immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner’s full enjoyment of the property and to limit his/her exploitation of it[iv].

[Monfang]

What law would come into effect? (I may have missed or misunderstood a post if this has been covered)

I.. Can't remember. I"m sure I was thinking of it when I wrote it, but I can't remember now.

According to USLegal.com and their comments regarding ownership of airspace it might be argued that just as a warrant or probable cause is necessary for physical search of private property the same might be required of drone search and observation.  It will probably take some legislative or judicial action to set precident for this.

Would Extenuating Circumstances, the same that allow officers to issue a search if time wouldn't allow for a warrant to be issued before harm comes to innocents, come into effect then if they were searching for a criminal hiding among homes to use drones to get into private airspace?

[Beguile's Mistress]

The police don't need a warrant to navigate your property when chasing someone so I think the drone would be permitted in that case.  A suspect observed entering a dwelling would most likely give them probable cause to enter so a drone observation could probably do that as well. 

We're getting into specifics here that are going to have to be evaluated on a case by case basis until here is sufficient precedent established to satisfy most everyone.  There are too many what ifs to not cause arguments or nitpicking right now.

[Monfang]

So back to the overall problem, the claim that police would use these to spy on the public Big Brother style and peek into your bedroom window like opposition argues. I want to point out the main problem with these ideas.

Why would they?

Why would the police waste the money it would take to have those things active all day and night just to fly over areas of the city. Police officers make patrols because it is better to have them out across the roads so they can take action for a wide variety of issues, but drones have a much narrower use than officers that they would only be sent out for those specific situations. Drones can't make arrests or settle domestic disputes that officers do the majority of their time.

[Callie Del Noire]

I have a feeling they would treat IR capability that can go though solid walls as going a bit far. That would require a warrant.

I would have thought that as well. till the court decision came down that the authorities can track your GPS enabled phones without a warrant and use your contact list on your phone if you have it on you when they detain you. They can read email, IMs or whatever if your phone is unlocked without a warrant.

Civil liberties aren't what they used to be.

[Monfang]

I would have thought that as well. till the court decision came down that the authorities can track your GPS enabled phones without a warrant and use your contact list on your phone if you have it on you when they detain you. They can read email, IMs or whatever if your phone is unlocked without a warrant.

Civil liberties aren't what they used to be.

Chances are, the way they see it, it's the same as if you have a written or typed letter on your person when they arrest you. They can open and read it without a warrant. That phone is a portal to all those papers you might carry in a briefcase. So do you treat the phone differently than you do a briefcase or the same?

[Callie Del Noire]

Chances are, the way they see it, it's the same as if you have a written or typed letter on your person when they arrest you. They can open and read it without a warrant. That phone is a portal to all those papers you might carry in a briefcase. So do you treat the phone differently than you do a briefcase or the same?

Thing is.. email is TYPICALLY considered privileged. IE.. if you seize a computer.. you normally have to obtain a warrant to use/look in it.

[hippyness]

So back to the overall problem, the claim that police would use these to spy on the public Big Brother style and peek into your bedroom window like opposition argues. I want to point out the main problem with these ideas.

Why would they?

Why would the police waste the money it would take to have those things active all day and night just to fly over areas of the city. Police officers make patrols because it is better to have them out across the roads so they can take action for a wide variety of issues, but drones have a much narrower use than officers that they would only be sent out for those specific situations. Drones can't make arrests or settle domestic disputes that officers do the majority of their time.

Agreed on the why would they but having met plenty of police, the question is not "why", but "why not". If they have the ability it will happen. Maybe not wide spread and no, not every office trained and outfitted with the drone would. But there will be the one guy who's going to do what he wants with his new found power to abuse.

[Callie Del Noire]

All I see is another reason to get my FCC license and get a frequency scanner/jammer for fun games.. but then I'm a mean tool.

[Monfang]

Thing is.. email is TYPICALLY considered privileged. IE.. if you seize a computer.. you normally have to obtain a warrant to use/look in it.

So just because it happens to be on a phone and on your person while you are arrested, it isn't privileged? That does need to be fixed.

Agreed on the why would they but having met plenty of police, the question is not "why", but "why not". If they have the ability it will happen. Maybe not wide spread and no, not every office trained and outfitted with the drone would. But there will be the one guy who's going to do what he wants with his new found power to abuse.

That sounds like a specific officer that would be handled in a specific situation. Don't punish the whole because of individuals.

[elone]

Maybe it is just me, but I just don't like the idea that I can be watched by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

From Feb. 11, Time Magazine. Some interesting items about drones. UAS is acronym for Unmanned  Aircraft System

"The GAO report also mentioned "privacy concerns over the collection and use of UAS-acquired data." A lot of people share those concerns. Drones are the most powerful surveillance tool ever devised, on- or offline. A Reaper drone equipped with the Air Force's appropriately named Gorgon Stare sensor package, for example, can surveil an area 2½ miles across from 12 angles at once. Its field of view swallows entire cities. The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has produced an imaging system called ARGUS that can pick out an object 6 in. long from 20,000 ft. in the air. In a story worthy of the Onion, USA Today reported in December that Air Force officials were so swamped with the 327,384 hours of drone footage taken last year, they consulted with ESPN about how to edit it down to the highlights, à la SportsCenter.

Imagine how Americans would feel if the Gorgon Stared at them. It's not a hypothetical. In June 2011 a county sheriff in North Dakota was trying to track down three men, possibly carrying guns, in connection with some missing cows. He had a lot of ground to cover, so — as one does — he called in a Predator drone from a local Air Force base. It not only spotted the men but could see that they were in fact unarmed. It was the first time a Predator had been involved in the arrest of U.S. citizens.

Exactly how often Predators have been seconded to local law-enforcement agencies in this manner isn't known; that information is the object of a pending Freedom of Information Act request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But there's at least one Reaper equipped with Gorgon Stare at large in the U.S. Legislators from both parties, in North Dakota and elsewhere, are scrambling to throw legal restraints around the domestic use of drones. In Virginia, the relevant bill is supported by both the ACLU and the Virginia Federation of Tea Party Patriots.

And that's just the government. Drones don't care who they work for. They'll spy for anyone, and as they get cheaper and more powerful and easier to use, access to military-grade surveillance technology will get easier too. Voracious as they are for information, drones could take a serious chunk out of Americans' already dwindling stock of personal privacy. It's certainly not legal to fly a drone up 10 stories to peer through the curtains into somebody's bedroom, but it's just as certain that somebody's going to do it, if they haven't already. Last February an animal-rights group in South Carolina launched a drone to watch a group of hunters on a pigeon shoot on private property. The hunters promptly shot it down. It might be America's first case of human-on-drone violence, but it won't be the last."

[Monfang]

Elone, I can honestly tell you need to hear this.

Relax.

So far, we have one case, a case where a sheriff only used the drones to locate known criminals, something I think we all want them to be used for. They didn't kill citizens with them inside the US border. They didn't spy into innocent civilian's homes. They didn't do anything that couldn't have been done with a helicopter with a camera attached to it.

Human on drone violence. That's cute. Um, ya what the animal-right's group did was illegal and yes I am sure that someone with an RC toy that comes with or had a camera attached to it has used it to spy on people. And no one raised a fuss then. The only difference is that we all have this image stuck in our heads of these war machines the military uses rather than the machines the police use that are actually a tenth of the size of those if that!

[Iniquitous]

Monfang I take it you've never heard the analogy 'put a frog in hot water and it'll jump right out. Put a frog in cold water and heat the water slowly, it'll sit there and boil to death."

You say 'relax'. I say pay attention. Here's another one for you. If you think you can trust the government, talk to a Native American. They certainly are not working in -our- best interest.

[Callie Del Noire]

It has been said once and it will be said again.

"Technology is outpacing our ability to regulate it."

A mere FOUR years ago I got offered a job to go out and service military drones in one of FIVE sit within the US that the military could fly them out off. Another job I applied for was to work with Blackwater on their border surveillance blimp UAV.

Today there is talk about putting next gen hand sized drones controlled by tablets into the hands of the police in some jurisdictions.

Tomorrow? Who knows.

Should there be concrete rules on UAV surveillance? Definitely. Will there be? Who knows.  It is getting harder and harder to keep oversight of some tools. 

Used to be that protecting the rights of the public and the phrase 'innocent till proven guilty' was the guideline. Expedience and post-9/11 fear mongering has whittled at our right to privacy, protections and civil liberties. A lot of folks have said a lot of things about it pro or con.

Me? I think rules and definite boundaries need to be set. What is justified against a pedophile or drug lord today can be used as a reason against YOU tomorrow because you are: a member of the wrong party, ethnicity, go to the wrong website or any other justification. 


Consider this. In some jurisdictions it is illegal to record a law officer in the commission of his duties BUT they can record you and provide evidence 'edited' to try YOU with. I recall this because a few years back one savvy kid had a full on video rig set up to record his dash to prove he wasn't speeding after a few tickets. He got stopped and harassed by a highway patrolman. Where was the troopers footage? 'Lost'.

[elone]

Elone, I can honestly tell you need to hear this.

Relax.

So far, we have one case, a case where a sheriff only used the drones to locate known criminals, something I think we all want them to be used for. They didn't kill citizens with them inside the US border. They didn't spy into innocent civilian's homes. They didn't do anything that couldn't have been done with a helicopter with a camera attached to it.

Human on drone violence. That's cute. Um, ya what the animal-right's group did was illegal and yes I am sure that someone with an RC toy that comes with or had a camera attached to it has used it to spy on people. And no one raised a fuss then. The only difference is that we all have this image stuck in our heads of these war machines the military uses rather than the machines the police use that are actually a tenth of the size of those if that!

Actually in the first instance the police used an Air Force predator, not what you referred to in the second paragraph.

In addition, I don't know that it is illegal for the animal rights group to observe a hunt. It may have been illegal to shoot down their drone. As Callie said, "Technology is outpacing our ability to regulate it"

As for relaxing, I am, but obviously you have not been around long enough or just dismiss the myriad of abuses of power that our government and police have perpetrated on citizens over the years. Do you really trust in these people to do the right thing and be open and honest with their dealings with the public. Hell  I guess that is why people have to go to the freedom of information act to get things they try to hide on a regular basis.

[Monfang]

Elone, I think the fact that they passed the Freedom of Information ACT proves they want to do their best for those they represent. It's an Act of Congress that was started by the House, supported by the Senate, signed by the President and backed up by the Supreme Court. If you are so scared of the Government, why are you using something that more than 2/3's of it started?

The only reason why technology is outpacing government is because The People haven't taken action to educate their Representatives. When was the last time you sent a letter to your Congressman or Senator or to the President about these issues? When was the last time you took time to educate them on what is going on? Have you ever? They are there to Represent us, but unless the People keep a close watch on those who do represent them, then they will Represent themselves.

The Native American issue is one that will have to be discussed in another thread. Not here.

Now you speak of the Sheriff using a Preditor class War Drone. Do you not think that he would have used something smaller and designed for just hunting for criminals, he would have used it? These small drones will be the go to machines for police when they need to hunt for criminals. They can be stashed in trunks, controlled from the passenger seat while another officer drives. These aren't war machines but cameras attached to helicopter rotors. There is no evidence for what ya'll claim of. All of this is hearsay and panicking over horror stories we are being fed.

The Police recording issue will have be addressed in another thread, not here.

Can there be individual cases of abuses? Of course. You give a man a reach at power and he will show his true colors. Some men step up and use it for good, others let it drag them down to evil. But we do not punished the good along with the bad. We find the bad cases, we weed the out, we let the good do their jobs and their duty. I don't know what caused you to hold such mistrust of people who take up an occupation where they could die any day. Even ona simple traffic stop.

Traffic Stop Goes wrong old man with an assault rifle kills two officers 1999 footage

Attempted Murder of Police Officer During Traffic Stop

Dashcam Ark Police Officer Shot Dead by Angry Gunman During Routine Traffic Stop.

Everything that I hear about cops becoming cops to abuse power is foolishness. These men and women put their lives on the line to keep order and let us know that we can go outside and not be afraid of being killed. Yet you spit on them and on the graves of those who have fallen.

Do you have no shame?

[Scribbles]

I think the fact that they passed the Freedom of Information ACT proves they want to do their best for those they represent.

I just had to wiggle in here as I've witnessed the (in)effectiveness of such Acts in multiple countries. It's certainly a nice gesture to have a small piece of paper proclaiming your right to know what the government is up to, but getting that piece of paper to carry any weight is like pulling teeth. You'll normally be drowned beneath a mountain of nonsense, ranging from national "security" to convenient bureaucratic delays, and if that isn't bad enough, there's always the drawn out legal battle to look forward to. It's annoying but more often than not such acts are passed to simply give the impression of doing good, rather than actually doing any good.

[Monfang]

I just had to wiggle in here as I've witnessed the (in)effectiveness of such Acts in multiple countries. It's certainly a nice gesture to have a small piece of paper proclaiming your right to know what the government is up to, but getting that piece of paper to carry any weight is like pulling teeth. You'll normally be drowned beneath a mountain of nonsense, ranging from national "security" to convenient bureaucratic delays, and if that isn't bad enough, there's always the drawn out legal battle to look forward to. It's annoying but more often than not such acts are passed to simply give the impression of doing good, rather than actually doing any good.

Would you rather they do nothing?

I've seen this act lead to a lot of discoveries. I never once heard of a case where it was deny'd.

[Scribbles]

Would you rather they do nothing?

That's a strange question... If nothing is the opposite of working their butts off to conceal information, then yes, I'd rather they do nothing. Personally, I don't think it's enough to simply pass a bill, for me that's nothing more than a pretty gesture. It's what happens afterwards, when the bill is tested, that I consider whether government is following through or not.

I've seen this act lead to a lot of discoveries. I never once heard of a case where it was deny'd.

Depending on which country you mean, outright refusal might be considered illegal, although I've seen it denied in plenty of places, mostly in an a round about manner. If you mean the US then I believe redactions are the flavour of the day, although they do tend to have more success with their FOIA. However, I think that's thanks to the sheer stubborness of some people/organisations as well as their particular legal system rather than a helpful government.

[Monfang]

Redactions are usually to protect national secrets such as names of operatives, military secrets, or secrets that other countries share with us.

[Scribbles]

Redactions are usually to protect national secrets such as names of operatives, military secrets, or secrets that other countries share with us.

"Usually" but they're often misused to hide a lot more under the guise of national security.

[Monfang]

"Usually" but they're often misused to hide a lot more under the guise of national security.

I would like to hear of your evidence, but we are getting off topic.

Is there any reason to not give police tools to help protect citizens aside from the failings a few members?

[Scribbles]

I would like to hear of your evidence, but we are getting off topic.

Easy enough to give an answer without going off topic. For the USA, visit the American Civil Liberties Union website (www.aclu.org). It has so much evidence of the US's abuse of national security, it isn't funny.

On the topic at hand...

For now, I'm actually in favour of the use of drones but only if regulated properly. We've already armed our police with deadly weapons and trust them (or not) enough with that responsibility, so I don't see the harm in giving them a flying camera. It sounds like it would perform the same operation as a helicopter.

[Monfang]

For now, I'm actually in favour of the use of drones but only if regulated properly. We've already armed our police with deadly weapons and trust them (or not) enough with that responsibility, so I don't see the harm in giving them a flying camera. It sounds like it would perform the same operation as a helicopter.

That's all they are. Mini-unmanned helicopters. It won't do anything that a police copter wouldn't do already aside from it being smaller.

[Skynet]

There's a relevant YouTube clip from a source I respect and trust.  LiberalViewer, a guy who discusses political and legal issues.  He's an ACLU lawyer, and he discusses the potential ramifications for drone warfare.

Limits on Obama's Flying Killer Robots?

[Monfang]

LiberalViewer.. a lawyer for the ACLU.. Right.

Skynet, I'm sorry. But none of that has to do with this. As I explained in my original post, we are not talking about war machines. we are talking about small drones for surveillance, search and rescue and other services I can not think of at the moment.

[elone]

Elone, I think the fact that they passed the Freedom of Information ACT proves they want to do their best for those they represent. It's an Act of Congress that was started by the House, supported by the Senate, signed by the President and backed up by the Supreme Court. If you are so scared of the Government, why are you using something that more than 2/3's of it started?

The only reason why technology is outpacing government is because The People haven't taken action to educate their Representatives. When was the last time you sent a letter to your Congressman or Senator or to the President about these issues? When was the last time you took time to educate them on what is going on? Have you ever? They are there to Represent us, but unless the People keep a close watch on those who do represent them, then they will Represent themselves.

The Native American issue is one that will have to be discussed in another thread. Not here.

Now you speak of the Sheriff using a Preditor class War Drone. Do you not think that he would have used something smaller and designed for just hunting for criminals, he would have used it? These small drones will be the go to machines for police when they need to hunt for criminals. They can be stashed in trunks, controlled from the passenger seat while another officer drives. These aren't war machines but cameras attached to helicopter rotors. There is no evidence for what ya'll claim of. All of this is hearsay and panicking over horror stories we are being fed.

The Police recording issue will have be addressed in another thread, not here.

Can there be individual cases of abuses? Of course. You give a man a reach at power and he will show his true colors. Some men step up and use it for good, others let it drag them down to evil. But we do not punished the good along with the bad. We find the bad cases, we weed the out, we let the good do their jobs and their duty. I don't know what caused you to hold such mistrust of people who take up an occupation where they could die any day. Even ona simple traffic stop.

Everything that I hear about cops becoming cops to abuse power is foolishness. These men and women put their lives on the line to keep order and let us know that we can go outside and not be afraid of being killed. Yet you spit on them and on the graves of those who have fallen.

Do you have no shame?

I suppose I should not even reply to this since you seem to have taken this beyond the topic and are getting personal. However, just for your information, I have written many letters to my representatives and even gotten a reply from the President (probably robosigned but still nice).

I have yet to find anywhere that I mentioned people joining the police force for the purpose of abusing power. Your words, not mine.

I do mistrust government on many levels, and perhaps when you are mature enough to think for yourself you may as well. However, since you have no idea of my personal views on the police, it is a long and unwarranted step to say I spit on them and have no shame. That sort of tactic is not welcome on Elliquiy and you should be aware of it. For your information, I have served my country, and carried a badge in that capacity, so don't pretend to tell me about respect for law enforcement.

All of which has nothing to do with drones and their use by government within our borders. As you said "You give a man a reach at power and he will show his true colors." Why give them that opportunity.

[Monfang]

I suppose I should not even reply to this since you seem to have taken this beyond the topic and are getting personal. However, just for your information, I have written many letters to my representatives and even gotten a reply from the President (probably robosigned but still nice).

I have yet to find anywhere that I mentioned people joining the police force for the purpose of abusing power. Your words, not mine.

I do mistrust government on many levels, and perhaps when you are mature enough to think for yourself you may as well. However, since you have no idea of my personal views on the police, it is a long and unwarranted step to say I spit on them and have no shame. That sort of tactic is not welcome on Elliquiy and you should be aware of it. For your information, I have served my country, and once carried a badge, so don't pretend to tell me about respect for law enforcement.

All of which has nothing to do with drones and their use by government within our borders. As you said "You give a man a reach at power and he will show his true colors." Why give them that opportunity.

First off, thank you for your service both on the battlefield and on protecting our streets. You are right, I allowed my emotions to get the best of me. All I want is to give the police the best tools they need to insure that both they are able to do their jobs and can come home safely.

The cases we have found of abuse of power are commonly of individuals and they are quickly stopped. Yes, there are cases of individual departments in cities like New York and Chicago turning corrupt, they should be taken as individual  and unique cases and not as a sign of a problem on the whole.

[elone]

As I stated, I am not opposed to drones being used for search and rescue etc. It is also not the police that I fear using this technology for legitimate law enforcement purposes. I did sit on a jury once and had a fire marshall testify to observing a suspect start a fire when in fact in his position at the time his view of the alleged crime was blocked by a building. Two others did see it, and videos did show the crime, but he could not possibly have seen it. Prosecutors are particularly good at hiding exculpatory evidence as well. I am digressing, sorry.

However, I do see government corruption as an endemic part of our nation (look at the influence of lobbyists, legal bribery, and look at our justice department and their record).  I have no doubt that they would find a way to use drones in an inappropriate manner. We are just testing the waters with this technology and we need to tread carefully before we allow this type of surveillance to go forward. Here is the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would think that at some point in the future this will be a decision to be made by the Supreme Court as to whether or not drone surveillance  constitutes a search. Probably not, since they use video now, but it may depend on the circumstance and use of the drone.

Do we all want to be safe, of course, but at what cost to our freedom?

[Monfang]

You have many a good point, Elone.

While I doubt that corruption is as wide spread and deep seeded as some say, I do agree there are forces in place that seek to push an agenda and some can do real harm. Technology is growing in leaps and bounds, as someone else in the thread suggested, and laws are having a hard time keeping up.

I believe I need to shift my position. Perhaps it would be best to slow down on the introduction of drones into the public security sector. At least until they can get a long and serious look and our laws updated so that they are better controlled.

[elone]

Of course we have been talking about the public security sector.

What the hell are we going to do when we are surveilled by the private sector using this technology?

This is going to be an interesting future.

[Monfang]

I already brought up the little RC toys that come with 'spy cameras' on them. There are larger versions which wouldn't be too hard to stick a camera on and from what I saw, you could build most of these drones in your garage. It will be an interesting future indeed.

[Oniya]

Of course we have been talking about the public security sector.

What the hell are we going to do when we are surveilled by the private sector using this technology?

This is going to be an interesting future.

In the case of the neighbor (or their kids) spying with RC cameras, I suspect that a simple signal jammer (i.e., closer and stronger tunable remote) and confiscation of their over-priced peeper would be a start.

[elone]

In the case of the neighbor (or their kids) spying with RC cameras, I suspect that a simple signal jammer (i.e., closer and stronger tunable remote) and confiscation of their over-priced peeper would be a start.

But what about say a private investigator or perhaps anti abortion folks flying over a clinic taking pictures of those who go in and out?

[Oniya]

Same basic thing - at least, that's how I'd deal with it.  What you'll find as the incidence of 'snooping' tech increases is an increase in 'anti-snooping' tech.  People concerned about their privacy (which is a large market) will demand such a thing, and there will be people who see that as an opportunity to make a buck.  Kind of a cold reality, but I can see it happening quite easily.

Alternatively, there is the pigeon-hunter's method.  Jamming tech is just a lot quieter.

[Monfang]

You mean like the increase in the effectiveness of armor in relation to the increase in effectiveness of weapons, Oniya?

[Oniya]

Essentially.  As hackers got better at infiltrating computers, we saw better programs written to keep them out.  As virus-writers got better at creating malware, we've seen better anti-malware software.  As bacteria evolve to resist antibiotics, we've seen chemists work on better ways of killing them (both before and after they enter the body).  Although, you can still wreak havoc on someone with high-end night-vision goggles with nothing more than an old-style camera flash.  >:)

[Monfang]

Essentially.  As hackers got better at infiltrating computers, we saw better programs written to keep them out.  As virus-writers got better at creating malware, we've seen better anti-malware software.  As bacteria evolve to resist antibiotics, we've seen chemists work on better ways of killing them (both before and after they enter the body).  Although, you can still wreak havoc on someone with high-end night-vision goggles with nothing more than an old-style camera flash.  >:)

Well, the police can't have criminals get their hands on systems to counter their equipment? It is why weapons and armor are regulated. People might be able to buy or make their own mini-jammers, but just like the systems that can detect speed traps or get into police radios, I think they would be illegal in different states.

[Oniya]

Ah, but the question was about dealing with private-sector snoops with publicly-available equipment.  ;D  I assume that public safety equipment would include better protection from interference. 

Of course, eventually, you'd have this 'police-grade' equipment getting out to the private sector, which would result in a kind of 'arms race', the same way that the Texas University clock-tower shooting resulted in an upgrading of police training (and the creation of the SWAT forces).

[Monfang]

Ah, but the question was about dealing with private-sector snoops with publicly-available equipment.  ;D  I assume that public safety equipment would include better protection from interference. 

Of course, eventually, you'd have this 'police-grade' equipment getting out to the private sector, which would result in a kind of 'arms race', the same way that the Texas University clock-tower shooting resulted in an upgrading of police training (and the creation of the SWAT forces).

On the police-grade equipment, that is to be expected. Criminals raid transport vehicals or warehouses where they are stored and it gets on the black market. Same thing that is happening today with guns and ammo. I doubt we will see battling drones in the air within our lifetimes at least, but there is a chance of counter surveillance. The kid that is paid ten dollars to shout 'police!' replaced with a drone.

And you are right, I slipped up and went in a different direction.

In the terms of the private sector, we are dealing with an interesting problem. Though, I have a feeling that the cases will be broken up so that they are easier to solve. The first one being unintental surveillance, that is a case where a drone is just flying around and accidently catches something incriminating or illegal to record. Then you might have Neglagent Operation, where the drone in question causes damage somehow but accidently. Then there is the use by a minor, a child basically, which would be something I can't think of a name for. Then when you get into the cases of intentally damaging or recording someone outside of your property for no good reason, you get into Malicious Surveillance and Malicious Operation. And lastly the most serious which would be outright attempting to rob someone of their privacy. The horror story of drones peeking into bedroom windows, for example. Though as loud as those things are, it should be far off.

[Oniya]

On the police-grade equipment, that is to be expected. Criminals raid transport vehicals or warehouses where they are stored and it gets on the black market. Same thing that is happening today with guns and ammo. I doubt we will see battling drones in the air within our lifetimes at least, but there is a chance of counter surveillance. The kid that is paid ten dollars to shout 'police!' replaced with a drone.

You can already do this to a fair extent with a digital camera and a wireless transmitter and receiver.  Possibly some phones, but I'd imagine it's still a little pricey to do it with a 'throw-away' phone.  Set your camera on video mode, attach to transmitter, place in an inconspicuous place 'covering' the desired area, and view what the camera sees on the receiver.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay.. let me put it this way.

Sooner or later, if it's not regulated and curtailed, you'll be able to get the nifty little drones like we saw in Dark Angels wwaaay back in the last decade. What does this mean.

Well you'll have an autonomous patrol of automated drones (or monitored drones from a central loction) who might or might not have cameras, and/or weaponry. AS the tech improves, (specifically range, distance, responsiveness and autonomy (for 'black out periods)) you are going to find drones becoming more and more common.

With the introduction of off the shelf components, plug and play software and control systems, you have a veritable nightmare of security issues. Terrorists won't need suicide bombers.. they'll fly these. Paparazzi will gain a new method of tracking their targets. Police men might or might not have new methods of investigation, patrol.

Note.. aside from weaponry.. almost NONE of the material to create the small 'smartphone' driven drones is illegal to possess. Growing in scale to the manhole cover sized drones of 'Dark Angel'