Slashdot Mirror
Honeywell To Sell Miami-Dade Police a Surveillance Drone
AHuxley writes "The Miami-Dade Police Department recently finalized a deal to buy a 20-pound drone from defense firm Honeywell. The drone can fly for 40 minutes, reach heights of 10,500 feet and cruise in the air at 46 miles an hour. As the Miami-Dade Police Department has recently made a lot of budget cuts, the funding may have come from a federal grant. An eye in the sky like over Iraq and Afghanistan may soon be looking down over South Florida 'to keep people safe.' Honeywell has applied to the FAA for clearance to fly the drone in urban areas."
Assault on a Police officer with a door knob. Yeah you read that right told Miami police to pound sand at 3 AM after they woke me up talking about a dead body smell (was the refig in the apartment next door which was off and had gone bad) with no warrant. Closed the door and got my ass handed to me when the door knob hit the officer and he claimed I assulted him. Spent the night / next day in MIA prison waiting for bail facing 7 years for assault, & resisting arrest.
fuck miami, and 'the man' that live there! sorry had to be said.
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
The drone in question is a "T-Hawk". Seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_RQ-16_T-Hawk
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I am less worried about flight duration than the sensor payload that Honeywell is installing for Miami-Dade. IR, Thermographic, NightVision, and HD cameras at the very least to make the drone "useful". TFA only mentions "cameras" not what type.
This statement by police says it all. "It gives us a good opportunity to have an eye up there. Not a surveilling eye, not a spying eye. Let's make the distinction. A surveilling eye to help us to do the things we need to do, honestly, to keep people safe," said Miami-Dade Police Director James Loftus.
Hmm. "Not a surveilling eye," then "A surveilling eye to help us..." Maybe a typo, but still telling.
We knew this was coming. http://news.cnet.com/Drone-aircraft-may-prowl-U.S.-skies/2100-11746_3-6055658.html
Time to start-up my own residential sheilding supply and installation company. Any investors interested?
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
I can only hope the FAA is smart enough (funny joke there) to say no. The risk to other aircraft can not possibly be justified. And given that this would likely trigger as a "pop up" means that the pilot and passengers this drone may murder would likely be "at fault." - even if hit from the rear.
There is absolutely nothing safe about having an idiot cop with a remote control aircraft mixing with air traffic which has can not see and avoid - which is a mandate of the FAA.
Your screed assumes that the public has the same access to all these cameras as the police.
The reality of the situation is a bit murkier.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Miami Beach? Could I, um, have my own drone just kind of fly around looking at "stuff?" I'm thinking Goggle Earth would never be the same...
Or worst he is one. It really is hard to maintain perspective when your paycheck requires you to have your head so far up your own ass that you can't see how little of what you do actually makes a difference, and how much of it is needlessly harming other people for little reason more than supporting the prison-industrial complex and auto insurance companies.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, but I find the contrast confusing... Is it simply the case that surveillance is OK provided it's difficult? If that's the case, why do we allow helicopters at all? Or in the case of manned surveillance, why are the police allowed to use radios? Shouldn't they have to use call boxes? Either we're OK with the concept, or we're not.
The difference is that "difficult" surveillance can't be mounted on a massive scale - they actually have to be frugal in its use. They can't go around tracking everyone; they have to be pretty sure they have the right people to follow before committing the resources to it.
"Easy" surveillance OTOH, can be used to simply monitor everyone. Well, actually, that should read "will" instead of "can". It's basically Murphy's law as applied to surveillance: if the opportunity exists to misuse a law or technology, it will be misused. Surveilling everyone is way easier than bothering with all that pesky "probable cause" nonsense.
The police are just doing what the politicians told them to do
You know who else was just doing what the politicians told them to do? Nazis. That excuse didn't work then, it shouldn't work now.
I've yet to see a govt. or law enforcement entity not try to extend on any powers given to them yet. They now use RICO to go after non-organized crimes. Remember when they needed warrants for most any cause? That's rapidly disappearing.
I see a very short leap in logic to, "if we had the eye in the sky armed, we could disable criminals as they moved about..".
Also how about the next step..."well, if the public doesn't mind be watched by a few drones, we could also see things better and cover wider area, if we just set up cameras everywhere in the city, much like England does".
Any tool they have, can and often will be abused. Tasers? Seemed like a good idea, to have a non-lethal force weapon...not as much gun play. However, look at the overuse of tasers these days on people and situations that just do not call for that level of force.
I'm for heavily questioning any new *tool* given to the police...they really need to justify it in a huge way because of the potential for it to be abused by them on less than criminal public activities.
This thing sound something like an unmanned Blue Thunder.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I dunno. I believe in the no expectation of privacy when on a public space to the extent of it being available only to human eyes. It is a different thing, however, to have that extrapolated to being stored on tape or whatever media, computer enhanced, computer analyzed...and kept for long periods of time to be viewed by any number of people (some in power) over any length of time. Information used this way to find patterns in your life apart from this one area (tracking your movements actions, etc).
I don't mind if John Q Public or Jane P. Officer seems me walking down the street, and remembers it as long as they please. But I don't want them following me around with a camera, recording my movements, etc. Don't put me under observations UNTIL I am under suspicion for criminal activity.
That's the way it is supposed to work, not just using tech to set out a huge drag net to try to catch a criminal and scooping up info on innocent people in the process.
What if there is a murder somewhere? If you're filmed or somehow tracked to be in the area at that time, guess what? You're automatically a suspect. No problem with that since your innocent? I guess that's ok...since no one has ever been wrongly accused, convicted and incarcerated/executed before.
Frankly, I don't want my name on list of potentials which will happen with expanded observation and tracking.
And as for turning the camera on those in power? Have you seen the recent posts on /. about this? I think it is in Penn. where people trying to film/record the cops in action have actually been convicted of illegal wiretapping and have felony charges (maybe even convictions).
I think that those in govt and law enforcement SHOULD be the ones under constant surveillance...since they have so much power over the general public. The general public, however, should have the right to as much privacy as possible, and be left alone as much as possible.
That last part, I would think...is something our founding fathers would support and likely assumed would be the way we lived on after they passed.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........