Police Launch Drones Over LA

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that law enforcement officials have launched a new form of drone aircraft to patrol the skies above Los Angeles. From the article: 'Police say the drone, called the SkySeer, will be able to accomplish tasks too dangerous for officers and free up helicopters for other missions. "This technology could be used to find missing children, search for lost hikers, or survey a fire zone," said Commander Sid Heal, head of the Technology Exploration Project of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "The ideal outcome for us is when this technology becomes instrumental in saving lives."'"

Comments

Pointing out the obvious

[Blondie-Wan]

Well, naturally it'll be a great outcome when it's used to save lives. What kind of outcome will it be when it's used to keep tabs on citizens' movements?

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[bladernr]

What kind of outcome will it be when it's used to keep tabs on citizens' movements?

I guess that depends on which citizens and what is the process to keep tabs on their movements. Do they need a warrant and/or probable cause? Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto? In whose hands will the tool be? The "Protect & Serve" type of police or the "Shoot first and ask questions later" kind? Any tool is bad in the wrong hands.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[symbolic]

You're missing the point..."in the public" does NOT mean "under surveilance." They are two different issues, and it's especially important when you factor in the issue that the surveilance isn't on private property being performed by a private entity, it's being conducted by the government. I believe that ALL government surveilance should be overseen by a court, especially since advances in technology are making it relatively easy.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[EGSonikku]

But how is this different than a Polic Helicopter? I presume they didn't go out and get warrants for every house and backyard they fly over and can see into. Removing the human element shouldn't cause the paranoia i'm seeing here.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[R3d M3rcury]

While I agree with the sentiment--"Any tool is bad in the wrong hands"--I take issue with your example: "Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto?"

I'll admit, this falls back on your warrant and/or probably cause. But consider the following scenario: A man of middle-eastern descent walks home from work and takes a shortcut through the railyard. Now, this is illegal. We all know that. He's doing it because it saves him a 20 minute walk--no excuse, admittedly. A policeman spots him doing this. What would probably happen? The cop would watch what he does and at some point during his walk home, would pull over and ask him a few questions and say something to the effect of "Stop doing that." Maybe even give him a ticket for trespassing or something.

Same scenario, but this time he's spotted by our "eye in the sky" drone. The operator can't talk to the guy, obviously, but the guy is of middle-eastern descent so he could be a terrorist and, after all, a terrorist could do a lot of damage in a railyard. Maybe I'd best call in the FBI or LA's investigators. Now, of course, we can't just go up to this guy, so we'd better find out more about him, talk to his employer, neighbors, etc. All on the QT, of course, we can't let him know we're watching him.

So, of course, the man's boss is told that they're investigating this guy because he might be a terrorist. Think the boss is going to give that guy the raise he was planning on giving him? Think the neighbors are gonna let their kids play with his kids?

The difference here is that the cop-on-the-beat has some incentive to immediately find out what's going on. The guy behind the camera has nothing to do but make up wild stories.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[apflwr3]

For one thing, police helicopters are loud and obvious. They're watching you, yes (in fact they have a crystal clear, high resolution view of the ground, even at night) but at least you know they're there. It's also easy to tell if their surveillance powers are being abused; if a helicopter was hovering over the same house for hours or returning night after night the object of the surveillance would know and be able to question why.

"Drones" are pretty much invisible. There's no accountability, because you don't even know they're there. That's where the paranoia comes in-- it's one thing to be watched some times if you know who's doing it (the cop on the beat), it's another to be potentially watched at all times by an invisible "eye in the sky". Not that I think they're going to be trailing average citizens for criticizing the government any time soon, but there can and will be abuses. Los Angeles and Orange County politicians are notorious for fighting dirty, and that includes the upper ranks of the LAPD.

Oh, and it's not just your activities in public (or your backyard) you should be worried about, those cameras are good at peering in windows too. Unless you keep your window shades down at all times (or covered in tin foil, of course.)

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[quanticle]

In short, 'they' refers to the executive branch of the government. Police, FBI, and the various intelligence agencies could all potentially use this tool to collect unauthorized information.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[daigu]

Some tools are bad in any hands - because of the nature of the tool itself (so called "tactical" nuclear weapons), the environment in which the tool is used (assault weapons in the hands of traffic cops) or other reasons (one example among many: an organized government program where citizens are encouraged and compensated for reporting on fellow citizens).

Some tools are always tools of tyranny. 24 hour survellience of public spaces - despite the arguably utilitarian aspects - it antithetical to a free society. I believe the parent is simply pointing out this issue.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[YrWrstNtmr]

Maybe I'd best call in the FBI or LA's investigators.

Or, I'll tell the local cop on the beat, who might have missed this guy, to go check him out.

Sure, it could go down as you describe. Or not.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[vandan]

The old 'but if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about' is a very lame arguement, as it doesn't address the fact that the law is an ass.

Hypothetically, if all our laws were just, and such 'protective systems' were only used to actually protect, then yes, people doing 'nothing wrong' would have nothing to worry about. But our laws are not just. Each day, the western world becomes less democratic and free, and more totalitarian. The separation of powers ( parliament and courts ) and the separation of church and state are disappearing. Look at the elevated position of Emperor Bush, claiming he is 'commander in chief'. This is a horrific attach on these important separations - the republicans are attempting to seize ultimate power for themselves and make the judiciary irrelevant. They say that military justice is above and beyond civilian justice.

The merging of church and state is also very worrying. The republicans use religious arguments for attacking civil liberties such as homosexual relationships, womens' right to choose abortion. They pander to the religious right on issues such as recreational drug use. All these issues ( in this paragraph ) have NOTHING to do with the state. The state can fuck off and find somethinng else to do. Sure - these are issues for religions to discuss, and I welcome their advice. However I respectfully reject most of it on the grounds that it is absolute bullshit. Take homosexual relationships. I'm not gay - far from it. But I argue strongly for people's right to do whatever the hell they want to do, because I believe in 'freedom'. And by 'freedom' I don't mean US corporation's rights to invade everything from our privacy to other countries in the search of profits. I mean individual freedom ... you know ... the right to do what you want as long as you're not harming others.

In light of the above issues, I fail to see how anyone other than the religious fundamentalists and extreme right could be anything other than horrified ... nay ... terrorised at the prospect of yet more surveilence. Just look at who's doing the surveying.

The very uncomfortable truth is that there are a LOT of people, breaking a LOT of laws, every day. What they are doing is socially acceptable, and yet at the same time, completely illegal. Say I light up a joint in my backyard ... which I sometimes do actually get around to doing. My only security is in the fact that surveilence is not yet universal. But lets pretend that I don't smoke joints. Let's say instead that I hate fucking Dubya, and I think he's a war criminal. Now lets say I talk to my friends about it, while walking down the street. I have no problem telling individual police officers what I think of their state and their laws and their wars and our fine leaders. Individual police officers are not overly interested in busting my arse, as long as I'm not at a demo with other like-minded people. But add universal surveilence into the mix, and you've got a fucking huge problem for democracy. People walking around criticising the government won't be walking around much longer. If you think this is being a bit paranoid, think again. Look at Guantanimo Bay. These people are political prisoners. Search up on Scot Parkins - a US antiwar activist who was arrested here in Australia for 'secret' reasons and sent back to the US ... basically because he was a vocal critic of our governments. It's already happening. Universal surveilence will just make it a hell of a lot worse.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[werewolf1031]

Number 1: are you really that ashamed of your own body? What are you so scared of? I think this whole country is stark (no pun intended) scared of everything. How else could we be governed so well?

It has nothing to do with "being ashamed", and everything to do with: A) Obeying local decency laws; and B) Respecting your neighbors, who may not want to see you buck-nekkid. Geez, what is SO hard to understand about that? Even beautiful people who aren't the slightest bit "ashamed" of their bodies still need to respect the law in the matter, and respect their neighbors. It's part of living in a civilized world with other families in close proximity, if you want them to respect your rights and wishes then you should respect theirs.

Number 2: you still are innocent. Nobody is accusing of any crime whatsoever. Yes, it would be the same thing if they were polite and searched through my stuff. That would inconvenience me. First of all, I have to let some people into my home. This means I'm going to have people walking around poking and prodding at all my stuff. If you think that it isn't an inconvenience watching people poking around in your stuff, even if they're neat about it, I do have to say you have much more patience than I.

I completely agree with you on this, so no rant needed. Though I would like to add in support of your argument, why should we be treated like criminals if we've done nothing wrong?

Number 3: I'll give you a fun solution. PUT YOUR FRICKEN TOP UP. [...] You know what you did? You caused a hassle for the police department. You had to get the captain down to your vehicle, taking him away from his duties because you think it's SO much of a hassle to put the top on your vehicle.

OH NOES, DON'T INCONVENIENCE THE PO-LICE! Spare me. Last I heard, the police were public servents, whose job is generally to protect and serve the public, ie. the taxpayers, who pay their wages. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing but utmost respect and admiration for honest, wanna-do-the-right-thing cops... but also utmost contempt for those who abuse their power. Make no mistake, a police officer IS in a position of power, and like all such positions that power can be -- and unfortunately often is -- abused. That is why we, the people for whom the police work, must ensure that the proper checks and balances remain in place. It's also why many voice concern about aerial spy drones over civilian population areas. And rightly so.

GROW UP. The government's job isn't to kiss you on the forehead, it's job is to keep you and me safe. By wasting the law enforcement's time, you are actually infringing upon MY safety as a citizen, as well as wasting my tax money for your petty problem.

NO. The government's job is NOT to "keep you and me safe". It's to protect our freedoms and, most importantly, allow us to live our lives as we wish. There is a significant difference, try to wrap your brain around that difference. We can engage in an email discussion if you wish, but that difference is critical. Here's another hint: It's not the government's job to keep us bodily free from harm, it's the gov't's job to keep us free from oppression and tyranny. Physical safety is NOWHERE guaranteed in the Constitution, nor should it be expected. With that clear lack of expectation, it falls on each of us individually to protect ourselves; the police are not superhuman, they cannot be everywhere at once, nor instantly know the law-abiding citizens from the criminals -- THAT determination falls on our court systems. But this is getting off into a whole different rant; I digress.

If YOU left the top off your jeep, it's YOUR responsibility for what's in it. I know a guy who works construction and some of his guys throw beers in the bed of his truck when he's not looking. You know what he does? He cleans them out. He doesn't call the police captain and say "but TH

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[cold fjord]

SWAT: You are surrounded. Do not attempt to make fun of the president or you will be shot!
Middle Eastern Guy: WTF?
*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*

I'll break it to you gently... people make fun of President Bush every day, it's not a crime in the United States. It won't get you arrested or shot unless you pair it with some other blindingly stupid activity (run at the police waving a handgun while telling anti-Bush knock knock jokes) or make a statement that could be considered an actual threat against the President. In that case, you might have a visit and a chat with someone, but you won't be executed. Now, if you don't believe that telling jokes about the President is fine, just take a look at the TV. President Bush is constantly used as the butt of jokes, but Leno/Letterman/Stewart/etc. aren't broadcasting from undisclosed or hidden locations, are they? Making a joke about the President doesn't make you a hero, victim, or target. (BTW - You do realize the Muslims can be any race, from any place on the globe, right?) Voting for President Bush's political opponents, lobbying against his policies, peaceful/lawful demonstrations are all fine.

What will get you into trouble is plotting to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens. In that case, telling jokes is irrelevant, the problem is the plot or attempt to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens.

In short, humor=OK, bombing=no way!

Most Americans get this.

We'll ideally it even saves lives...

[gd23ka]

"The ideal outcome for us is when this technology becomes instrumental in saving lives."

But we'll settle for tracking your every move.

Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives...

[EGSonikku]

The moves that can be 'tracked' are when you are outside, in public. Of course they can follow you on the street. So can the guy behind you and the other guy across the sreet. You are in *public*. If you want privacy, go indoors.

Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives...

[maxpublic]

Of course they can follow you on the street. So can the guy behind you and the other guy across the sreet.

Actually, my state has anti-stalking laws. And anti-harrassment laws. My guess is that the laws only apply to us citizens, though, and that the government can stalk and harrass us as it pleases, simply because it chooses to do so.

Canada, for all of its faults, looks better and better with every passing day....

Max

Combat Zone

[pvt_medic]

"bringing technology most commonly associated with combat zones to urban policing." now some might argue that LA is not that far away from being a combat zone.

They'll get distracted

[notext]

Once they fly over a backyard with some woman topless sunbathing out by the pool they'll forget all about saving lives.

Re:1984?

[Blondie-Wan]

Some of the hot women might not care to be checked out by people they can't check out in return. Would you?

Bullshit

[dotslashdot]

"This technology could be used to find missing children, search for lost hikers, or survey a fire zone" COULD BE used. Obviously it WON'T be limited to those situations. How will it help find missing children? Since they are missing, you don't know where to look, and you cannot possibly look everywhere in Los Angeles. If they are kidnapped, then how will the drone find them in a car or a house? Searching for lost hikers is a legitimate use, but how often will it be used for that? I don't see an epidemic of lost hikers justifying purchasing this equipment. As for use in a fire zone, why would the POLICE purchase a drone for that? Wouldn't the FIRE DEPARTMENT need it? These are NOT the reasons for using these drones. These drones will be used to monitor the streets of Los Angeles to gather track citizens and citizen activities at the expense of intruding on people's privacy (not legally defined privacy, but real-life privacy). These will be deployed during lawful public protests, for example, under the excuse of public safety. Since the Department of Homeland Security already has jurisdiction over pretty much everything, they can use it to build profiles of people at a lawful protest, adding to the data the DHS collects against citizens, allowing it to add people to no-fly and other blacklists. This is really just domestic spying, not to save the children, hikers or survey a fire. ("Mr. Fire, can we ask you a few questions?").

Re:1984?

[Psychotext]

That was my point... if the technology is out there that will let someone silently look through your windows, guess what - That's what they'll probably do.

Why nobody cares

[electrosoccertux]

By and large, the most frequent response when I get this is "Oh, no, thats not going to happen. The government is doing this for a good reason, and I trust them."

So I've given up on trying to convince any but my closest friends. I just don't care anymore. If they want to be this flippant about the fourth ammendment, I'll let them be. To either wake up one day to realize they lost all their rights (and its too late for them to do anything about it), or to stay asleep....either would be a horrible punishment. They deserve it; they've chosen it.

I'm not that worried about it. We are smart enough to be on the inside of it all. We're smart enough to be the ones at the top monitoring all the OTHER stupid citizens. When enough smart ones rise up who care enough to do something about it, I'll either welcome them in or join them to set it the way it should be. Its win/win either way.

Re:Why nobody cares

[evilviper]

We are smart enough to be on the inside of it all. We're smart enough to be the ones at the top monitoring all the OTHER stupid citizens.

That's a TERRIBLE position to take. If you not only fail to resist, but support this activity, you're helping to create the monster, which may very well eat you when it is finally in place. How many of Stalin's top men found themselves in the gulags they helped to create? How many Jews were indespensible cogs in helping the Nazis suppress other Jews, only to end up sharing the same fate?

Being at the top is a short-term benefit at best, while helping establish something evil is a long-term proposition. It's a case of chosing death, or selling your soul to stay alive. I really hope most people have less self-centred ideals than yours, and can better look at the big picture.

A creepy uneasy feeling...

[Neptune0z]

After reading over a lot of the slashdot replies to this article; it's interesting to note that the majority of them are posts by people with privacy concerns. I mean, a tool is just that; an instrument that serves a purpose. As has already been said before many times; Theres nothin fundamentally wrong with this technology, but instead how it's used will be the deciding factor. While I don't give much thought to the average joe's insights or opinions, I try to pay attention to underlying themes, ideas and threads of thought that run thru society as a whole. And, right now theres a storm brewing here in the USA. Im not saying most (or even the majority), but a substancial part of the populace does have a very uneasy feeling about our government and their motives. I'm trying to be an optimist, but despite that; I see such technology being abused to serve the interests of those in power without some type of VERY good oversight... Let's hope other people see this also, and do something about it before technology gets too advanced and we have no choice but to play along... Just my $.02

Re:Or it could be used

[cgenman]

launched a new form of drone aircraft to patrol the skies above Los Angeles

Drones following Drones. Kafka would be proud.