Slashdot Mirror
UK Police Plan To Use Military-Style Spy Drones
krou writes "According to documents obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act, the UK police plan on deploying unmanned drones in the UK to 'revolutionize policing' and extend domestic 'surveillance, monitoring and evidence gathering,' which will be used in 'the routine work of the police, border authorities and other government agencies.' The documents come from the South Coast Partnership, 'a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan' in conjunction with BAE Systems. The stated aim is to introduce the system in time for the 2012 Olympics. Initially, Kent police stated that the system would be used to monitor shipping lanes and illegal immigrants, but the documents reveal that this was part of a PR strategy: 'There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a "good news" story to the public rather than more "big brother."' However, the documents talk about a much wider range of usage, such as '[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving,' as well as 'road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance.' Also, due to the expense involved, it has also been suggested that some data could be sold off to private companies, or the drones could be used for commercial purposes."
1984
But Big Brother wasn't bad, he was always there to protect you...to watch out for you. He would never hurt you.
What is really amazing isn't that they're implementing this system, it's that their rhetoric is so very similar to that from 1984. They don't call the system or the watchers big brother, but they tell you that it's for your protection, only bad people have anything to fear, and generally have a nearly indistinguishable attitude about it. The only difference is the name. But not many actually read 1984 I suppose (from the general populace, geeks here not included) so most people I imagine don't realize the similarities in rhetoric.
This is obviously a bad thing, and makes me very cautious about even wanting to enter the UK. Yikes.
The slippery slope is your attitude that "if it's in the open, they can record it." Because for the last ten thousand years of human civilization THIS HAS NOT BEEN TRUE. So to say there is no effect from this radical change in human circumstances is either naive or disingenuous.
Recording every inch of public space is (and should be) different from policing public space. At least that's how I see it. We want to keep down crime but we also want people to carry on their lives without everything being dissected and analyzed. Public privacy/anonymity may already be a myth but we don't need to help things along by supporting universal surveillance.
Yes this standard can be extended quite far, but as long as we draw a line at the required physical bugging of private property, I'm okay with it.
Which merely means that by the time they do decide that they're going to install cameras in your house, you won't be able to do anything to stop them.
Opposing a slippery slope is much easier at the top than at the bottom where it's approaching with the momentum of a thirty-ton truck with a rocket on the back.
On the surface, this does not seem like a bad idea.
It seems like a bad idea to me. I don't like being spied on by my government. Of course, I'm against having secret police* in a "free" society, too. Cops should be visible and wear distinctive uniforms driving distinctive vehicles.
* In the US, the secret police are called "undercover agents", "plainclothesmen", and "DEA". Laws that make victimless crimes are an excuse for having secret police in the first place, and should be repealed.
Free Martian Whores!
Sounds like a good application for hackers; don't shoot them down, commandeer them.
In the United States, we'll shoot at helicopters with actual people in them. If Homeland Security tried to spy on us with drones, it would become a sport to shoot them down. And they WOULD go down, too. Lots of expensive wreckage.
As much as I love the 2nd amendment, you do realize that most small arms top out at 10,000 feet and these drones fly around 20,000 feet or higher, right?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, I guess this had to happen. Full fail for street level cameras for billions, so the only option left is to go full retard.
One cannot even argue that this is a responsible use of public funds:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6082530/1000-CCTV-cameras-to-solve-just-one-crime-Met-Police-admits.html
Of course, tourist photos must be deleted though, you know, in the name of public safety. Where is the "shake my head in disbelief" animated icon again?
- - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
And when the massive tracking database of 'observations' is hacked and used against the populace, this will be seen as evidence of a need for MORE surveillance.
When it comes to data:
To PROTECT it,
Don't COLLECT it.
Actually, it is a terrible idea for citizens, and whoever modded you insightful doesn't live in the UK. Past experience suggests that if you give an inch, they take a mile. Terror laws were introduced on the understanding that they would not be abused. Guess what? They were abused, and not just by the police harassing legitimate protesters, photographers, and just every day civilians. Councils used terror laws to justify snooping on people suspected of lying about where they lived so they could get their child into a local school, spying on suspected litterbugs, and spying on council employees. There's plenty other cases documenting the systematic exploitation of these laws.
The mere fact that these iditos knew full well there would be a public outcry, and that they should focus on shipping lanes and illegal immigrants in order to spin this, should sending warning bells across the UK. It's quite clear that the police view activists and legitimate protesters as "domestic extremists", so there's only one reason they want the capabilities of these drones: They're lying bastards who want to infiltrate what little privacy we have left in our lives even further to make us live in fear, and to stifle dissent.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
He only had to do all that "probable cause" thing because you were there. Without you in tow, the cop could have stopped the driver and just SAID the driver had broken some law. And who's the judge gonna believe?
It's a good thing that airborne drone cameras fly at street level so they can't see into privacy-fenced yards, then.
Oh, they don't? Hmmm...is that another exception to the logical and clear limit?
I think this is the part where you say something like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I have lots of problems with it. There are lots of illegal activities that many people participate in that their social circles approve of that draconian laws have been put in place to outlaw that could be seen by these drones.
Here are some examples:
Yard has a privacy fence, the couple enjoys outdoor sex and without the drone spying on them they could do it in the privacy of their back yard.
Having a party, someone brings a joint. You and your social circle don't mind, but the eye in the sky does.
You can't make it to a restroom, nobody is around, you duck in the bushes and relieve yourself, but the eye in the sky sees.
You're driving down the interstate and there aren't any cars on a strait away, you can see clearly for several miles and see the median is clear of enforcement officers the entire length of the strait away. You think to yourself, I wonder how fast my car can go. You tap your car out. Nobody was around and nobody cares, except for the eye in the sky.
There are lots of things we do everyday that are completely safe, nothing morally wrong with doing, and don't cause harm to anyone; yet there are laws against them. Under normal circumstances we obey the laws to make the watchers happy, because we know they aren't watching all the time. But we still all break some laws some of the time. Jaywalking. If we had 100% surveillance all the time we wouldn't be safer, we'd probably go insane.
>> a much wider range of usage, such as '[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving,'
Ahh the truth will out. Has there been an country-wide epidemic of tractor thefts recently? Is it practical to use an aircraft that can't hover to surveil ATMs? I think not. Now guess which one they REALLY want drones for.
I really can't imagine that our wonderful police would generate all those lame excuses just to cover up that they really just want drones as yet another way to generate even more revenue from drivers that momentarily stray over already devisively low speed limits. Surely not.
When will the police actually go after real criminals instead of finding new and devious ways to repeatedly bully soft targets like us road users?
Is this really what my grandad fought to defend with is life in world war 2?
Lots of people are using jaywalking as an example non-crime in these comments. Just so you all know, jaywalking is not generally against UK law; the only places you can't do it are motorways (where anyone going less than 50mph will cause problems), railway crossings while the barrier is down, and small patches of road next to lit pedestrian crossings. Everywhere else, it's your judgement.
Now, for the technology itself, I think it will help catch a lot of minor criminals, rural fly-tippers, and an unexpectedly large number of farm-animal-fancying zoophiles, but it will have very little effect on organised crime. Why? Dazzle from small lasers. What's the cost of a CD/DVD burner?
I don't like perfect surveillance - this country has too many laws for any one person to know, so I have no idea if I'm breaking any or not.