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

Oh cool!

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Just like HL2 ... gimme a gravity gun and I'll get rid of the lil' suckers

Re:Oh cool!

[sjs132]

"A small camera capable of tilt and pan operations is fixed to the underside of the drone which sends the video directly to a laptop command station. Once launched, the craft is set to fly autonomously with global positioning system (GPS) coordinates and a fixed flight pattern.

Ok, Scratch previous contents of needing guns... Just get a laptop with stumbler... find the 'WHY-FLY' connection (he-he, I'm soooo Punny... ;) and post it to SLASHDOT... Then watch the plane (AKA, DRONE) stall and crash as it gets slashdotted as everyone logs into the drone to see the video of the next hi-way chase on the LA freeway...

Could bring NEW meaning to the terms "CRASHING A SERVER"... :)

Or it could be used

[HighOrbit]

This technology could be used to find missing children, search for lost hikers, or survey a fire zone

Or it could be used to follow White Broncos

Re:Or it could be used

[Anonymous Coward]

Or simply to ensure everone is having sex in the missionary position. . .

"Great news chief, this town is free of anal sex!"

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.

Re:Or it could be used

[raehl]

search for lost hikers

Did LA grow a big forest in the middle of it that I'm not aware of?

Re:Or it could be used

[valen]

  Duh. If you are a hiker, in LA, you are really lost. QED.

john

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

[R3d M3rcury]

Okay, how about doing something completely legal like parading around buck-tooth naked. As long as you cannot be viewed from the street, you're okay. Suddenly, there's police drones flying around taking video of you sunbathing in the buff.

Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But tell me that video isn't going to get on the Internet.

Why should a drone be peeking in my backyard? To make sure that I'm not doing anything illegal? But, at least the last time I checked, I was innocent until proven guilty. It's the same idea. Would it be okay for the police to enter and search your house if they didn't bash down your door and tear things up? Suppose they were nice and polite and put everything back the way they found it. Would it still be okay? After all, you're not inconvenienced...

Let me give you a fun example: I used to drive a Jeep. I hate having a top on my car, so I often leave the top down. I've come back to my Jeep and found all sorts of entertaining things stuck in there (eg porno magazines). Once, I found a bunch of marijuana joints. I assume that some kids had them and were afraid of getting caught with them, so they stuck them in my Jeep figuring they'd come back later and pick them up.

I've been pulled over by the police. They've asked to search my vehicle and I refuse. Why? Because I don't know what some people might have hidden in the vehicle and I don't want to be responsible for anything that the cops might find. One time I had a cop who tried to tell me that my attitude was "suspicious," that was "probable cause" for him to search my vehicle, and I should just make life easier on myself and cooperate because if I made him go through the hassle, he'd have me thrown in jail for sure. After all, why should I decline a search? I have nothing to hide, do I?

I told him he had to get his captain down here. The captain came down, listened to my story, and agreed with me. The vehicle is open, anything could be in there, and declining a search does not constitute probable cause.

These rules exist to protect all of us.

Re:Pointing out the obvious

[zenhkim]

> In whose hands will the tool be? The "Protect & Serve" type of police or the "Shoot first and ask questions later" kind?

Considering that we're discussing the Los Angeles fucking Police Department I'd say the question answers itself.... (Rodney King, anyone? How about Rampart?)

Seriously, my "Army vet buddy" also worked as an LAPD cop. Now he's a private investigator who specializes in cases where the defense has suspicions regarding police corruption.

One such case involved a Latino who was stopped by police while he was walking down the street. The man had no priors, but vaguely fit the description (Latino) of a suspect. When the police proceeded to arrest the man, he protested that he had done nothing wrong. The cops then beat him up, forced him to kneel on the ground and shot him, point blank, several times in the legs.

Here's the funny/sick part. The police reported that the man broke and ran from the police (resisting arrest) and that they only shot him in the legs to stop him from fleeing. Furthermore, they claimed he was physically violent when they tried to cuff him at that point, so they had to "subdue" him. The guy was screwed, yes?

No. My PI and ex-cop friend was working for the defense attorney, and he noticed that the angle of the gunshot wounds had an extremely steep downward angle. It didn't fit the police report of the incident ....but it made perfect sense in light of the man's side of the story -- that he was on his knees when the cops, standing around him, shot the man repeatedly.

From his hospital bed, the man practically cried, "Why, oh why did they have to shoot me so many times?"

To which my friend explained to him, "Simple, mister: YOU DIDN'T DIE. When cops shoot you at point blank range like that, you're supposed to die. So when they kept shooting you and you kept *not dying* you pissed them off. Don't you know better than to piss off an LAPD cop?" My friend was, of course, joking.

To this day, my PI / Army vet buddy never runs out of work.

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

[evilviper]

Removing the human element shouldn't cause the paranoia i'm seeing here.

Sure it should. It's not the "removing the human" element, it's the "adding the machine" element. It's the "law enforcement database" thing, the "CCTV" thing, all over again. When you have an automated information-collection system, you have FAR, FAR more potential for abuse. A view which has been confirmed time and time again.

The British government is getting a lot of flack lately, for their own CCTV system, as people say the police are using it to prosecute trivial infractions, while serious crimes continue unabaited. Video after video gets released of someone getting repeated beaten and/or stabbed under the watchful eye of CCTV cameras, and perhaps a half hour elapses before any officers arrive. Not to mention repeated misidentification through the CCTV system, leading to innocent people being arrested, shot, etc.

Up until the modern era, it wasn't that you had privacy, it was that it was prohibitively expensive/difficult for police to piece together your every move, as they can now at trivial cost. At least with a police helicopter, you know they aren't going to go through the trouble of hovering over private homes, waiting for trivial laws to be broken.

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.

1984?

[Psychotext]

But police say that such privacy concerns are unwarranted because surveillance is already ubiquitous. "You shouldn't be worried about being spied on by your government," said Heal. "These days you can't go anywhere without a camera watching you whether you're in a grocery store or walking down the street."

You're already screwed, but you don't have anything to worry about unless you have something to hide. You don't have something to hide do you citizen?

Dropping the paranoia. I've been into a surveilance center in a major city and, as you would expect, half the time the people working there are too busy checking out the hot women walking about to notice any crimes...

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?

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.

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.

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:They'll get distracted

[heli0]

There was a television program that conducted a similar experiment. People were hired to operate surveillance equipment to watch a suspected terrorist. During their shift a couple next door would began having sex visible through a window. All of the surveillers watched the couple and allowed the suspect to leave unnoticed.

it's good and it's bad

[mikesd81]

LA's a big city. There are some good things about this.


* It frees up man power
* It saves money on paying pilots and buying more aircraft
* They can cover more are quickly plus relay constant feed back and be remotely controlled to travel certain ares faster.

There are some bad things.

* It could, theoretically, be a privacy issue as they take pictures of people's yards (I'm sure pictures will be wide lens)
* Let's say they can hover and ease drop on a building
* I'm sure taxes will come into play (howerver this may be on neutral ground if it really beneifts the residents).

Umm, no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

Though the SkySeer is not capable of spying into windows just yet, for some a future of nearly invisible eyes in the sky is an unsettling introduction of science fiction into daily life.

"A helicopter can be seen and heard, and one can make behavior choices based on that," said Beth Givens of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. "Do we really want to live in a society where our backyard barbeques will be open to police scrutiny?"

At least someone is asking the right questions.

But police say that such privacy concerns are unwarranted because surveillance is already ubiquitous. "You shouldn't be worried about being spied on by your government," said Heal. "These days you can't go anywhere without a camera watching you whether you're in a grocery store or walking down the street."

I don't have a problem with private businesses using cameras to monitor their property as long as the cameras are not government sanctioned stations to monitor the public. I would hope that tapes from those business cameras would at least take a subpoena to be viewed. Where I do have a problem is when an officer seems to justify unwarranted surveillance devoid of probable cause using unmanned drones patrolling my backyard. What happened to my Constitutional rights regarding search and seizure?

And do you know how they sell this to the public?

"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."

It's for the children stupid!!! How long until this is used to collect even more information on the citizen of our US? Land of the free and home of the brave indeed...

actual pictures

[calin2k]

BBC has pictures http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5051142.stm

Re:Maybe you ought to think about this...

[fishbowl]

>...there's many more hot women walking around than there are crimes.

You've neve been to LA.

Danger to aircraft!

[olafva]

My son flys light aircraft in the LA area. He has commented Helicopters are often
difficult to see, especially when the hover stationary at the end of runways. There
have been several crashes with loss of life in LA due to light planes hitting helos.
Perhaps since UAVs fly lower than helos, they will reduce crash danger to my son.
I'm curious if UAVs are exempt from all FAA regulations or do they require any
notification tonearby towers when they are launched?

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.

Picture

[The MAZZTer]

I found this picture of the prototype: http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:7SY6ib0nUY04 BM:battleteam.net/tech/fis/docs/images/halflife2_s canner2.png