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."
and Blue Thunder
Why not arm them while we are at it, after all its for the children.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Great Britain, I'd like to introduce you to this American invention we call the "cowboy hat". It's related to some older technology (the sombrero) and serves to protect the face (and neck) from sunburn and observation by aerial surveillance drones.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving
What the heck is 'antisocial driving'? A car driving separate from the other cars because it is shy and lacks social skills?
What are the laws going to be on probable cause to stop someone that is on "candid camera"?
What I mean is, if it spots you jaywalking, can they just follow you around and order local units to stop you? If you're walking by a street vendor and they see you reach into a bin, then moments later just happen to put your hand in your pocket, are they allowed to detain and search you?
Anecdotal evidence here, take this as you will.
A few years back I joined a "Citizens Police Academy". Basically, at its core, it is a PR program setup to bring the community and its police together. We got to basically take a free 10 week course meeting once a week where we went over the basics of all the police duties.
Personally, I got to partake in classes where they taught you about evidence gathering, etc. We got to do mock pull overs in the parking lot (quite interesting scenarios), I got to go on ride alongs (4 hours "on the beat" with an officer), I got to fire their weapons at their range, and I also got to partake (although limited) in on site SWAT training where I got to be the bad guy and we basically played hide and seek.
The most enlightening part of the whole experience, as well as my point, lie in the ride along.
Once nighttime hit, we were patrolling the back roads and an out of town car was just going along doing its thing. The driver, as far as myself and the officer were concerned, was obeying the traffic laws. However, the officer I was with had a hunch that this kid might be up to "something".
We followed him for a bit waiting for him to screw up. Although, we were certain he knew we were behind him (crown vic headlights are easily spotted when you know what they look like). Eventually the car we were following pulled off onto a private driveway.
The officer still was suspicious of his activity and wanted a reason (probable cause) to stop him. So we quickly u-turned and headed out to a "lookout" spot above the side street the officer expected him to exit from. The reason he wanted a good lookout spot was to see if he would not come to a complete stop at a particular stop sign.
Interestingly enough, the kid did come out the way the officer was expecting, however, he did come to a complete, 2 second, stop. No probable cause.
We followed him for a while longer and finally, the kid didn't come to a complete stop at another stop sign. Bam, cue the flashing lights and Signal 6.
While I wasn't allowed out of the vehicle, I noticed him take his time in talking to the driver. Smelling for smells and looking for things to see.
In the end, no ticket was written and it was a simple stop. However, I'm sure the kid had no idea we were 100% focused on stopping _him_ for the better part of half an hour.
We had no reason to suspect anything and simply followed him long enough until he made a simple and honest mistake. At that point the noose was tightened and we had Probable Cause to interrupt his night for no other reason than to quench the curiosity of a random police officer.
**For the record I want to state I didn't sense any malice or any power trip from the officer I was with. I also want to state that I won't second guess the intuition and gut feelings of police officers who deal with scum on a day to day basis. You never know when they will be right, then again, shoot a gun blindly into an ocean enough times and eventually you'll catch dinner.**
Now is this same thing going to be commonplace with drones overhead? Are officers going to look for anyone they find interesting and purposely waste time following them until the person does _anything_ to trip probable cause?
This just reeks of abuse of power and reeks of "show me your papers". Sure, you'll still need Probable Cause (hopefully) to stop the person, but with an unseen eye watching your every move from above, what are the chances you _won't_ do _something_ to trip PC and have your privacy invaded?
The potential here is scary...
Sounds like a good application for hackers; don't shoot them down, commandeer them.
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.