Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Domestic Use of Aerial Drones By Law Enforcement

Posted by samzenpus on from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

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.'"

20 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. But its ok for Google? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But its ok for Google?

    1. Re:But its ok for Google? by flyneye · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just build a small EMP generator. You may fry tech for blocks around but that drone will drop like a fly sprayed w/ RAID.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:But its ok for Google? by Algorithmnast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hopefully the parent will get modded up for humor. But if taken seriously, it's still a good segue into useful discussion.

      It'd be pretty easy to land in jail for that, as well. The "fried tech" would establish a radius, and therefore a center. And while you can try to do a covert op and put it in a box that's remote-controlled (blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc), it's amazing how good government forensics can get when you've actually annoyed the government.

      It would seem to be one way to get labeled with the terrier-ist word...

      Plus - have you considered what such a stunt would do for our individual "rights"? The Supreme Court has already declared that when you're in public spaces (including outside a building) you have no expectation of not being recorded both visually and audibly.

    3. 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.

    4. 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."
    5. Re:But its ok for Google? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny you should mention that - in this case the person arrested was trying to file a complaint about police misconduct and ran into a bureaucratic wall, so she recorded her final attempt on her blackberry. Many months later they are still starting their investigation into the police misconduct, but they wasted no time in getting her arrested and charged for making the recording.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:But its ok for Google? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hate Illinois Nazis.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Texas Budget shortfall for 2011 by transporter_ii · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Texas Budget shortfall for 2011 by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah but, in Texas and Florida for that matter, you have one of the freest gun ownership laws in the Union - that makes you freer than the rest of us!

      Actually Texas has some of the worst gun ownership laws. Many are unconstitutional according to both the US Constitution and the state's constitution. Only recently have they been expanded to allow allow for proper legal protection for gun owners. In fact, the right to safely stow a weapon (hidden and under lock and key) in your own vehicle, when at work, even with a concealed license, was just recently struck down. Which means, even with a concealed handgun license, the laws prevent most people from being able to protect themselves while in transit. Furthermore, Texas is one of the few states which does not allow open carry in some form or fashion.

      People like to think Texas is a throw back to the wild west. In reality, only a couple of years back, Texas was ranked toward the bottom for gun owner rights. Now, Texas is somewhere in the bottom, top third.

      Regardless of what you may think, Texas is absolutely NOT, "one of the [states with the] freest gun ownership laws in the Union". There are many, many states which are in front of Texas in this regard.

    2. Re:Texas Budget shortfall for 2011 by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well they expect to raise $50 billion from the new $5000 "untidy yard" fine that will automatically be added to people's property tax when the drone starts taking pictures of people's yards.

      In Henrico county, in VA, they have an ordanace that says you can't use inside furniture outside of your home. The idea is apparently to stop people putting couches on the front porch. However a local couple got into trouble for having a bathtub in their backyard used as a planter. I believe it was not visible from the street, and the pics I saw showed that it was very nicely done (not a rusted out heap used as a planter by default). They ended up in court over this. So your joke is not very far from reality

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  3. 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.

    1. Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try a radio-controlled model airplane. They've been used as camera drones before. After all, that's all those government/military drones are anyway...just a scaled-up version of Junior's RC model plane.

      An RC model plane would also be a likely candidate as an improvised anti-drone weapon. You really wouldn't even need any explosives or weapons onboard. Just fly the RC model into the drone's propeller. To make it even more effective, attach some lengths of relatively high strength piano wire or nickel-steel electric guitar string to trail behind the RC model in order to entangle the drone's prop.

      Of course, after the first anti-drone RC plane action the government will then proceed to outlaw RC airplanes in the US as terrorist weapons.

      Just look at what's happened to amateur/model rocketry in the age of terrorism.

      http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews.html

      Drone Wars!

      Coming soon to a high-surveillance metropolitan area near you!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  4. I'm not entirely the idea of using drones. by Petbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:so who's already figured out.. by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you can make out the details so you know it's a drone, it's probably close enough for the field of an EPFCG to fry it. Not that I'd condone that sort of thing, just sayin'...

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  6. Re:so who's already figured out.. by Bowdie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Holy shit. I just wiki'd EPFCG :

    An explosively pumped flux compression generator (EPFCG) is a device used to generate a high-power electromagnetic pulse by compressing magnetic flux using high explosive.

    An EPFCG can be used only once as a pulsed power supply since the device is physically destroyed during operation. An EPFCG package that could be easily carried by a person can produce pulses in the millions of amperes and tens of terawatts, exceeding the power of a lightning strike by orders of magnitude. They require a starting current pulse to operate, usually supplied by capacitors.

    Like I say, HOLY SHIT.

    --
    yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
  7. 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.

     

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. How low can it fly? by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?