Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Launch Drones Over LA

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

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."'"

20 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. Oh cool! by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Oh cool! by sjs132 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "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"... :)

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  2. Or it could be used by HighOrbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    1. Re:Or it could be used by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      Drones following Drones. Kafka would be proud.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    2. Re:Or it could be used by valen · · Score: 5, Funny


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

      john

  3. Pointing out the obvious by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Pointing out the obvious by bladernr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    2. Re:Pointing out the obvious by EGSonikku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    3. Re:Pointing out the obvious by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Pointing out the obvious by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Pointing out the obvious by zenhkim · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > 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.

      --
      "All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
    6. Re:Pointing out the obvious by daigu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Pointing out the obvious by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. 1984? by Psychotext · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    --
    People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
    1. Re:1984? by Psychotext · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
  5. We'll ideally it even saves lives... by gd23ka · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    But we'll settle for tracking your every move.

  6. They'll get distracted by notext · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. Umm, no thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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...
  8. actual pictures by calin2k · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  9. Danger to aircraft! by olafva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!