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.'"

7 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cheap drones can also be used to do surveillance of police stops by civil rights organizations.
    Let's wait how they like that.

  2. These will be abused by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

     

  3. Re:so who's already figured out.. by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well the government has these "catch all" laws, like "obstruction of justice" and "destruction of government property" if they fail to come up with specific charges to throw against you.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. Re:But its ok for Google? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed. Google have no right to invade property or privacy, while the police have a right when they have gone through arduous democratically approved processes.

    Flying a drone over your house to take photos is no different from using an infrared camera and sensitive microphone from the street... say, to watch your daughter in the shower.

    It's time Americans stopped taking it up the ass while they quibble over "rights of corporations" vs "rights of government". Whenever there's a massive power imbalance, the more powerful party needs careful oversight and should not be allowed to take advantage of you, only serve you (government/charity/mutual) or trade for mutual benefit (private party). No exceptions.

  5. Re:But its ok for Google? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet that never seems to stop the police from charging people with all sorts of things when you record THEM doing their jobs outside. Especially when they do their job repeatedly, with great force.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  6. Missing reference: Blue Thunder by v1z · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:But its ok for Google? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well over a decade ago I was in college, in a house with some friends. The owner had recently broken up with his girlfriend in a rather ungentlemanly fashion and as a result she called local law enforcement and told them he had a hidden drug manufacturing lab in his home. I'd like to point out at this time that this a very very small town... with a very small police force and again mention this was over 10 years ago... The police showed up while I was there drinking a beer. They never bothered me, I in fact continued to drink my beer while standing in a corner chit chatting with one of the cops. One of them whipped out a device that had a large block on one end and a LCD screen on the other. I have no idea how it worked, I assume ultra sound, but they literally looked through the walls of the house with it. They just put the large block thing against the wall and a cable ran back to the screen which showed what was inside it (looking for hidden rooms and such.) They were rather proud of their new gadget and showing it off to us... I think they were already pretty sure the ex was lieing and this allowed them to prove it without destroying the mans house... then they charged her with filing a false report.

    At first I was horrified they had such tech. But in this particular case, this police force used it in a very public friendly way. I guess what

    I'm trying to say is: Drones don't invade your privacy, bad cops do. If these devices lead to fewer incidents where swat teams descend on innocent suburban families eating dinner, I'm all for it.