Slashdot Mirror
Domestic Use of Aerial Drones By Law Enforcement
PatPending writes "Aerial drones are now used by the Texas Department of Public Safety; the Mesa County Sheriff's Office, Colorado; the Miami-Dade County, Florida, Police Department; and the Department of Homeland Security. But what about privacy concerns? 'Drones raise the prospect of much more pervasive surveillance,' said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 'We are not against them, absolutely. They can be a valuable tool in certain kinds of operations. But what we don't want to see is their pervasive use to watch over the American people.'"
But its ok for Google?
A budget shortfall as high as $25 billion is projected as lawmakers head into the 2011 legislative session,
Nice to know they have money to burn to spy on me...
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
...how to down these things with something other than a bullet? If they start using them for anything other than special occasions, I want to see them drop out of the skies like those birds from a couple weeks ago..
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
"But what we don't want to see is their pervasive use to watch over the American people." Too late.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
Cheap drones can also be used to do surveillance of police stops by civil rights organizations.
Let's wait how they like that.
... junk ... then close the skylight.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
So long as the drones are used to create only hatcheries and no sunken colonies, I will be ok. But in all seriousness, I do believe that the aerial drones can play a vital role to Law Enforcement. So long as they are quite secure (so not to be used by a third party) and that they have enough red tape in their use so at least minimize abuse, I am all for them. I will not be so idealistic in believing that there would be enough regulation in their uses that their will be absolutely zero abuses. I hate to be a consequentialist, but I think their uses outweigh the potential harm in some people's liberties. Granted, it is a slipper slope. But for me, I do realize that nothing in life is free. With freedom comes responsibility, and with protection comes restrictions on said freedoms freedoms. There is no perfect balance, nor is is perfect with either extreme. Just hope it is regulated enough to where it creates some form of balance.
If you are in your own house, you can't expect privacy from people in the street if your curtains are not drawn. With a drone you can't expect privacy if you are outdoors even if you are in your own backyard - but it is rather hard to draw a curtain over your backyard.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
If you want to avoid them you have to go in the sewers, then you have to deal with the manhacks.
What is the privacy concern?
As far as I know, they can't see inside of your home or your office unless you let them (open the blinds/curtains). When you are outside of your home, you have no (zero, zip, zilch) expectation of privacy while in public view.
This is why I don't get the "privacy concerns" with various monitoring systems. I'm not saying I approve of surveillance. I'm saying "privacy" is the wrong tool to use against it. Yeah, many people feel violated that they are being watched. Well, some people anyway. Most people couldn't give 2 shits about it.
Red light and speed cameras are bad because, at least in the USA, they tend to be run by private entities with a profit motive. Their first priority is to make money, not to catch criminals. (lets face it, the city is the same way, but the public can vote them out) This is a much better argument against these systems than "privacy concerns".
As for drones...I'd have to learn more about the program.
It is honestly no different that police forces using helicopters to patrol high crime areas.
we taxpayers spent billions in the previous decade building a CCTV spy network under the guise of law enforcement and guess what - it hardly solved any crimes. This will be the same thing with wings on (or prop blades) and is probably nothing to do with law enforcement and more to do with giving tax payers money to rich defense contractors who are buddys of the people looking after your money.
Korma: Good
The same police who shoot people and routinely lie about it and almost never get punished can be trusted not to use these new toys to spy on people salaciously ? What BS. What will happen if they are caught ? Nothing. So, it will go on.
What do the drones do that is different that police helicopters? Aside from being cheaper?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
If you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't mind being watched by cops (i.e. don't drive over speedlimits - ever).
Of course this same thinking also applies to Politicians and their being monitored by wikileaks (yes I'm a fan).
AND adjust the laws so going 75 (like everybody already does) on the interstate through farmland isn't a crime.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
I think there are limits to this kind of thinking. Would you like to be watched by the cops in the toilet? How about in your bedroom? What about your back yard?
I myself am not really bothered by CCTV cameras everywhere in public, but my house and my property are not public. It's one thing for a helicopter to momentarily follow a crook as he dashes across people's back yards, and it's another to be under potential observation 24/7.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They'll then have to pay more money to make sure the highway is suitably-maintained to allow such speeds safely, and ensure that everyone's driving test procedure is stringent enough to make sure people can safely drive that fast.
If you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't mind being watched by cops
The simplistic refutation of this simplistic argument is: Why do you have curtains on your windows?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
...become "suspicious activity", if the drone can't get a good look at you?
Congressional law requires all interstates (except local loops or extensions) maintain safety standards for 120 miles an hour. Why? So the army can move quickly.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
The really scary sentence in the article is "And the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence to seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity." So, all of a sudden, we have drones that are flying around and are programmed to look for suspicious behavior...is it suspicious to wave at a drone to show you have nothing to hide? Or is it suspicious to ignore it? Of course, in time, these drones will be armed -- non-lethal munitions at first (like tear gas), then probably something a little more potent as defense contractor sales reps convince police departments they need to deal with American citizens just like the military deals with potential insurgents (you know, someone herding a couple of goats).
Indeed. Judges in the USA have already ruled that nobody ever has a legal expectation of privacy.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
...how to down these things with something other than a bullet? If they start using them for anything other than special occasions, I want to see them drop out of the skies like those birds from a couple weeks ago..
Hack them.
It's just a flying government computer.
And that's in fact what scares me the most... they're just flying government computers... so any fool can probably hack into a flying weapon system.
(All the EMP stuff is fun, but not very practical).
I'm sick and tired of seeing people complain about how their lawmakers screw them over. And then seeing people fighting tooth and nail over the relative merits of Democrats vs. Republican.
Here's a clue, people: it doesn't matter one iota which of those two parties is in control: you are going to be complaining about how much they are screwing you over regardless. The simple fact is that the #1 core principle of the established political parties is to keep themselves established. Any #2 is about 1/100th as important as that one.
I'm starting to think the Metagovernment people are our only hope. It may be a disaster, but I don't see how it could be any worse than the totalitarian state these guys are building.
Seriously, no ones mentioned Blue Thunder in this thread yet?
Ok, so it wasn't unmanned, but definitely relevant...
The imdb summary http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085255/ even states:
"The cop test pilot for an experimental police helicopter learns the sinister implications of the new vehicle."
1983 wants its privacy concerns back.
the only thing that moves 120 miles an hour or more in the Army are helicopters and privates after the constipatory effect of MREs has worn off.
This is criticized by the typical /. crowd as "OMFG look at the fascist government spying on us!" but really it's exactly what many of you wanted, if you just looked at your expectations rationally.
Every iota of power you give government (and in the US we have nobody to blame but ourselves and our neighbors), understand that is an equal amount of control they give you.
Let's look at government-run health care: the moment you say that the government must be attentive to everyone's health care needs (regardless of their own stupid choices in life), you immediately give the government logical power over your health care as well: do you smoke? what do you eat? do you participate in risky sports? All of these things suddenly become part of the government's purview.
Further, if you insist that the government and the law is required to correct every (perceived or real) defect in civil behavior, then you concede that the law has the DUTY to observe every facet of civil behavior, everywhere. Need to make sure I have enough women in my company? Need to make sure I have doorknobs the right height for handicapped access? Someone used the "N" word you say?
Rather than being intelligent humans, who are expected to evaluate risk and make rational decisions based on that risk, we flee to the skirts of Mother Government. Some scary crazy dudes crashed some airplanes? Let's create a multibillion-dollar bureaucracy that will finger every crevice of 90-year old Norwegian grandmothers searching for explosives, but which dares not actually look twice at Muslim men in fear of lawsuits.
In fear for the children, we have moronic legislators working nights trying to figure out a way to regulate the Interwebz, instead of just expecting that parents pay attention to what their goddamn kids are doing, and what sorts of people they become, knowing that perverted and disgusting porn is out there, and really can't harm someone with a reasonable view of sexuality.
Also in fear for the children, we spend billions if not trillions chasing down trivial drug crimes (because they're the easiest to catch), and trying to stop the flow of drugs as if it's not an example of a nearly victimless crime. Can't we just let the potheads and crackfiends just destroy themselves and get it over with?
We claim we want a 'free' society, but then we demand to be protected from all risk. Essentially, the society that we have ASKED for, is the society that we are getting.
Hell, it's even in the financial market: instead of letting people get punished for making ignorant or greedy choices, we spend $1 trillion bailing out junk bond dealers and "rescuing" people whose mortgages left them underwater. Hey stupid, if someone says your $30,000 job can afford a $450,000 house, and you believe them? YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET. Further, we have a giant shell-game called social security that takes money from the workers to give to former-workers, so that nobody needs to save for themselves. As long as the pyramid holds up, we're great. We pay millions and billions to men who could be working but don't, to women who continue to drop litters despite abject poverty, and then millions more to incarcerate their permanently-damaged young. In this system, it's the people who work for a living every day, pay their taxes, and live within their means that are the idiots - we're stupid enough to continue paying these bailout taxes, and accepting a government that sees us as nothing more than a financial teat that they can continually pull for more money for 'the unfortunate' and 'the downtrodden'.
We've said "nanny state, please take care of everything for us!" - and empowered them to do so. Yet we're surprised that in turn the nanny state deploys its formidable resources to cover us with a stultifying blanket of surveillance and a Gulliverian web of laws.
Congrats. We're the idiots to blame.
-Styopa
...there's another Ghetto Bird for Ice Cube to run from?
Domestic Use of Aerial Drones By Law Enforcement: Isn't this why god gave man wickedlasers.com? Let the games begin.
I wonder what would be the minimum legal height at which one can fly.
If a plane goes twenty thousand feet above your property, that seems to be perfectly legal. If one of those drones flies two feet above your property that seems like trespassing to me.
Is there some minimum height agt which an aircraft must fly over private property without authorization from the owner?
Whew, I thought that droning noise was in my head. I'll have to look for other evidence that I'm going crazy, like those extra clicks on the phone when I pick it up.
Only a matter of time before these drones are used for traffic monitoring. Tickets will be mailed automatically and you will have no recourse.
What worries me is that these damn things won't be able to "see and avoid" other VFR aircraft. Privacy is all well and good but you won't have any privacy when a Cessna 182 comes crashing through your roof because one of these things ran into it.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
Sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome and free America is.
Nothing takes out a drone like a guided shoulder-launched missile :)
Couldn't they already zoom in on your porn mag from a sattelite?
Enemy of the state said they could...
"Let's look at government-run health care: the moment you say that the government must be attentive to everyone's health care needs (regardless of their own stupid choices in life), you immediately give the government logical power over your health care as well: do you smoke? what do you eat? do you participate in risky sports? All of these things suddenly become part of the government's purview."
No I think the health of the nation is a legitimate role for government. Like lets say, getting the word on on scientific findings that say DDT or Dioxin or smoking or Lead Paint are harmful to people, or baby cribs that can trap and kill babies inadvertently. To get that word out is one role and benefits us all. The second role is to outlaw or use fines or other legal tools to say prevent people from harming other people, like using lead paint in buildings, or exposing people to second hand smoke that don't want to die of lung cancer. These are not personal choices that effect only the person painting or the person smoking as much as you would like to think.
The country's children are obese, why, because our food industry has made economic choices, often without knowing long term effects on our bodies and the bodies of our children. It seems resonable to take collective action to say we need to come off that fat roller coaster if we want to outlive our children. Economic incentives is the way to go, tax breaks and taxes combined to make it in peoples and companies economic interest to not continue with unhealthy practices.
If the obese did not end up in the hospitals and health clinics which expensive treatments we would all save money, not to mention our children would not be sick. We have see how the economy got sick, almost terminally ill when we let peoples greed drive the mortgage market and derivitives self regulated. If we have learned anything from history (the Savings and Loan crisis, the Energy Crisis, the morgage crisis, the BP spill...) is that it is our best interest to be involved with things that can effect all of us.
It seems like your comment on stupid choices would suggest that if someone makes a wrong choice, they should starve, or be homeless, or suffer and die on their own, what do you care, its not your dollar. Well it is your dollar that picks up the mess and my dollar, that runs the emergency rooms and the soap kitchens and Medicaid and Social Security. You don't want to pay but you do, just more and at the end the process and after people have suffered needlessly. I guess its a heart thing, a we are all Americans and we pull together thing. The wild west shootem up died a long time ago, except maybe in Tuscon. I just hope civilization comes quickly to those parts of the country that have not experienced it yet.
How about Domestic Use of Anti-Aircraft Weapons by Concerned Citizens?
...what round (that mere mortals can get) is best for drones?
How long until we get the same problem that these new airport scanners had recently? Only instead of just naked images leaked online, we get a whole video of someone changing who forgot to close their window.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
and is it illegal not to answer the door when they knock?
Korma: Good
Thus far, in the police tests, drones have been limited to a maximum altitude of 200 feet and 1,000-foot range from their operator. The FAA is expected to issue an NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) this year to streamline the Certificate of Authorization process for law enforcement. The NPRM process will likely include an opportunity for the public to comment.
How about if I wave my todger around? Would I then get done for lewd conduct or would they get done for being a peeping tom?
Is there some minimum height agt which an aircraft must fly over private property without authorization from the owner?
Yeah. One foot AGL.
However FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119 says this:
Sec. 91.119
Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
[ (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.]
--
PS: There is FAA/NTSB administrative case law that has established that two rural houses near to each other, even way out in the boondocks, constitute a "congested area" despite that there are no other structures for miles around (should've been considered a Sparsely Populated Area), and used this to convict some schmuck of a pilot who buzzed his buddy's farm house but the neighbor didn't appreciate it and turned him in to the FAA.
I don't support using drones as domestic surveillance.
I support drones having the same roles as Police helicopters, as cheaper and safer replacements for police pilots. We don't need 24/7 Monitoring of civilians or whatever.
But say, having a heavily armed assault drone as part of SWAT team equipment? This, I support. That would be awesome.
Having drones that can track high-speed chases safely (and perhaps engage in slightly more dangerous manuvers than a human-piloted helicopter might attempt)? This, I support.
Replacing a fleet of fuel guzzling, human-risking, high-maintenance helicopters for drones? This, I support.
Using them as domestic cameras, spies or monitors? No, I don't support that.
Aerial drones are the wrong tools for public deterance. That's the role of a patrolman. I can see some kind of ground based Dalek-type robot serving that role, but not an aerial drone. A police robot needs to be able to interact with citizens and offer challenge/response with real people. I wouldn't mind say, a bunch of patrol-bots monitored by policemen, that you could speak to and receive a response from real people. Something that takes over the roll of patrol-car sweeps, for instance. But something that creates a NEW function, and doesn't REPLACE existing humans with more efficient automation, I don't support.
Ah, now for the Good Old Days of East Germany and the STASI! I think, if they were still alive, Honecker and Mielke would each have blown a batch in their pants over what we can do today in the Good Ol' US of A.
Protect the Homeland, Comrades!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
So Mesa county can't keep track of it's confidential information ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/14/031214/Sheriffs-Online-Database-Leaks-Info-On-Informants ), and now it has a more pervasive way to collect information. I feel very warm and fuzzy.
The simplistic refutation of this simplistic refutation is: Because my neighbors aren't cops.
More precisely, it's because my neighbors are not officers duly authorized by me (via my citizenship) to observe my behavior looking for violations of the laws I have also authorized.
It's not the observation that's the problem. Real problems are infringements on things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, unreasonable search and seizure... you know, all those things that are granted in the Constitution.
It's not unreasonable for police to look for people breaking the law. It's their job. Why should they be prevented from looking at an area from any particular angle? If you really want to hide something, make sure it stays in a room without transparent windows. The police need to have clear evidence of wrongdoing before they can get a search warrant. If you're storing a pile of explosives in your backyard, expect a search warrant. You're stockpiling explosives, which is usually illegal. Does it really matter that the police saw the pile from the air, rather than through a knothole in the fence?
Unreasonable searches are ones that are without a good reason. That's what's worth fighting against. If a search warrant is issued based on "This guy is has a room we can't see into," fight it. Fight the search warrant, fight any evidence found in that room, and absolutely vote against any judge to approve such a thing. Likewise, fight against any legislation banning things you want to have, and encourage others (especially your representatives) to do the same.
To put things in simple terms: Make sure that whatever you're doing is not considered wrong.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Clay pigeons were starting to get pretty expensive and that was cutting down on my skeet shooting practice.
Have gnu, will travel.
People like to think Texas is a throw back to the wild west
Crickey, you're complaining that you can't carry a handgun when driving from your house to the local shops ("the laws prevent most people from being able to protect themselves while in transit")?
Sounds like the wild west to me if you need to carry a gun to safely buy a pint of milk from your corner store...
Apologies, crazy European who doesn't see a lot of guns. I accept you live in a very different culture. And I understand you were making a different point. But wow, that's a heck of a different culture that needs to carry guns to the shops and back to feel safe. Sounds pretty cowboy movie territory.
Police departments already use helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and even blimps on a regular basis. I imagine that the regulations that already govern those will also govern unmanned airborne surveillance as well. I understand of course that these UAV have much greater airborne time than helicopters and planes which does add a new concerns about persistent surveillance, but even that is limited as most UAV aren't going to be cheap to keep in the sky and will probably not provide that much different data versus having a cop stake you out for days on end.
Judges in the USA have already ruled that nobody ever has a legal expectation of privacy.
except for corporations (soon).
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I worry more about Nosy Neighbor and Power Drunk Housing Association than Big Government.
It's worth remembering that military drones aren't just passive.
The spying part of this is, uh okay, whatever. Less noisy than a helicopter, and the rules of evidence will probably result in most of these operations being declared off-limits without a served warrant. (I am not a lawyer, ok)
The part that scares the beejesus out of me is that some pimply kid in a dark room could decide to terminate a target with the push of a button, then sit back and take another sip of Mt. Dew while the drone heads back to base. The barrier to assassination with remote-controlled robots is just that much lower than if you have to send someone out into the field. Using drones with weapons is some cowardly, underhanded, sociopathic shit.
I think I will invest in ultra-cheap, easy-to-build, DIY anit-drone swarming robots now. Imagine a pack of paper airplanes that surrounds these things wherever they go, like trained seagulls.
Fairly certain he was talking about PUBLIC cops, since the article is about flying drones with cameras, not invading your private bathroom or bedroom.
As for your backyard, you have no expectation of privacy there. It's within sight of everyone, so if you drown your wife in the back pool, and a neighbor or cop sees it, expect to get arrested.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
It's not that guns are needed to feel safe, especially not in Texas. The issue by most I feel is purely political and idealistic. It's a right granted in the US Constitution (with valid debate about how far it actually goes). And if there's one big difference between Europeans and Americans is that many Americans put idealism above pragmatism. From the far left to the far right in the US there's a strong streak of "you can't tell me what to do!" that Americans have in common.
So the problem with "in transit" here is not that people don't feel safe in transit, but that some feel this is a flaw in the implementation of the law. Of course most Americans won't really go that far in this case, but for people who believe in unrestricted firearm ownership and bearing it's a big snag. Some would love to have the right to openly carry a gun where anyone can see it 24 hours a day no matter where they are. It's not that they want to actually use the gun, but instead it's a matter of principle.
Real problems are infringements on things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, unreasonable search and seizure... you know, all those things that are granted in the Constitution.
Did you miss the Presidential Address stating the Constitution of the United States of America is just a worthless piece of paper? Yeah, we all tried to forget the reign of George Walker Bush.
Why, oh why, do Europeans keep up this meme? You ever visit Switzerland, for heaven's sake? Every adult male is required to keep a fully automatic rifle and two clips of ammunition in his house. He's also expected to keep up on his target practice. Both requirements are a part of Swiss citizenship.
Trust me. Gun ownership rules are a LOT tighter in the U.S. than they are in some places. :-)
George Orwell wasn't ahead of his time, exactly, just wide awake. He could see technology growing, and being keenly aware of human nature, knew what was coming. And it is. Because no matter how advanced and sophisticated technology becomes, the people in charge of it will always be some combination of Dick Cheney and Frank Burns (MASH) - the ruthlessly ambitious, and the incompetently ambitious. And they will use technology to implement a police state of total surveillance. The rulers have always wanted that but lacked the means until now.
"The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation by surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard. Their mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded." - Vance Packard, American journalist, social critic, and author
"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." - Zbigniew Brzezinski, political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman, United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981
"Big Brother, in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector, will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order... and the like." - Justice William Orville Douglas (1898 - 1980) United States Supreme Court
"Under any condition, anywhere, whatever you are doing, there is some ordinance under which you can be booked." - Robert D Sprecht, Rand Corporation
As for your backyard, you have no expectation of privacy there.
My fence/shrubs/trees disagree.
If I make no effort to keep out prying eyes, then yes, I have no right to complain about you or anyone else watching, for example, my nude sunbathing. But if I put up a fence, make precautions so that any normal person would expect to be able to walk around their backyard without being seen, why shouldn't I expect a little privacy?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Given that I can't find any actual address involving anything remotely like that, I'll say yes. The thing I could find was a quote of "goddamned piece of paper", but I'm not the only one to miss that.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Crickey, you're complaining that you can't carry a handgun when driving from your house to the local shops ("the laws prevent most people from being able to protect themselves while in transit")?
Sounds like the wild west to me if you need to carry a gun to safely buy a pint of milk from your corner store...
If you are looking to be armed in order to protect others around you (or you yourself), carrying at the supermarket, liquor store, or other public venue makes more sense (in some ways) than having it at home. Criminals are far more likely to rob a store than they are to pick your house, as it's a place that is widely known to have money laying about in easily accessible (by clerks) drawers.
If you need the gun to buy groceries safely, then yes: it's a pretty wild and lawless place. Ganglands might fit that, I don't know. However, there's nothing wrong with being prepared for the possibility.
Pardon me if this has been posted, but a small drone, with a small bomb that is flown at a small target - kamikazi style - can be an assassins weapon. You can use eyeball piloting or have a cam on board to aim it. You could ruin some golf scores by buzzing people as they put LOL.
Hell, you can make a flying skunk with some bear spray - the possibilities are endless.
This seems so easy, that important people should be, and maybe are, equipped with those EMP point defense capacitor/explosive generators to stop this kind of attack on the Queen or The Pres?
The cost of such an attack could be under $200, and even less if you are a good scrounger.
How about an RPB as in remotely piloted blimp? This is a current project by Aeronautics students at Weber State University (WSU), Ogden, UT. So, this will really put some meaning in the term "fly over country". Practical considerations: 1. Once filled, it will weigh a few pounds and maintain that weight for several days but not indefinitely since helium leaks out of almost anything. 2. It can stay aloft for about six hours per battery charge including the snoop load. 3. Spare batteries give this craft a rapid turn-around capability. 4. Both high resolution TV and night vision was mentioned in the Ogden Standard Examiner article suggesting this craft could operate 24/7. Finally, it has a graceful failure mode if it loses power except that it might have to be retrieved from some strange places. The primary limitation is speed; so don't expect this system to work too well in Oklahoma. FAA rules are different for lighter than air devices. Generally, they have right of way except for non-powered balloons. They can operate at lower altitudes. This project will probably cause a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on the part of the FAA to establish operating rules for RPBs.
Yes, I've visited Switzerland. People don't as a rule carry guns on them, and I don't believe it's a big political issue that they are not allowed to. I haven't seen members of the public carrying assault rifles in the streets in Switzerland.
Very few Swiss people carry guns in their cars to go and buy milk from the shops, and this doesn't seem to be a big issue. In the USA it appears some people don't feel safe in some places driving unless they have a gun with them. I think this is one aspect of where the USA and Switzerland vary.
Not every adult male in Switzerland is required to keep a fully automatic rifle at home. Only those who have carried out military training, have kept up military training and undergone psychological testing. These tests do not seem to be required for possession of a fully automatic rifle in the USA, for example Jared Loughner. I think this is also another way that Switzerland and the USA differ.
Police UAV spotted at the Bestival Music festival on the Isle of Wight UK September 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928900117/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928775803/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3928937239/ http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=30814347%40N00&q=uav&m=text