Will Toys-R-Us Carry Spy Drones?

First time accepted submitter TomOfAmalfi writes "People are concerned about government use of domestic surveillance drones, but how is that different than what happens when people make their own drones, or buy them at a toy store? These units don't have the endurance or performance of the 'professional' models, but they can be useful and will get better. I can hear the police now when they realize the protesters are tracking them with toys."

Comments

Barney Spy Drones

[Nyder]

Yep, Barney, or Barbie Spy Drones. Can't wait.

But seriously, tech can be used for good and bad, and while it can be used by the police, it's apparent that the same tech can be used by people also. I'm sure they will scream and bitch, but will the make it illegal for civilians to use?

Re:Barney Spy Drones

[houstonbofh]

Of course not. They would never make tech that police are using illegal for civilians. Like wiretapping, or guns. Just never... The problem for them is that this is much easier to make at home than a gun. (Although, guns are surprisingly easy to make, and if not rifled, they are legal in the US)

Now I know I am on some watch list...

Re:Barney Spy Drones

[i.r.id10t]

Actually, you can make a rifle, pistol, shotgun, doesn't matter. As long as you don't violate teh NFA (no full auto, gotta get the tax stamp for SBR/SBS/AOW) you are good. And since the receiver (serial numbered part) is the "gun" by fed definition, that is all you need to make - slap a parts kit on it and you are done. Just can't make 'em for resale... Do a google for "80% receiver"

Re:Barney Spy Drones

[Dyinobal]

Only the toys r us in iran will carry spy drones. Sorry.

Re:Barney Spy Drones

[Zcar]

So shotguns aren't guns? BS.

The only guns (common English) that aren't legally guns in the US are:
* antiques from 1898 and prior or some replicas thereof
* muzzle loaders designed for black power and cannot use fixed ammunition

"Firearm" is defined in 18 USC 921(a)(3):
The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

"Antique firearm" is defined in 18 USC 921(a)(16):
The term “antique firearm” means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

So, yes, smoothbore firearms are legally firearms.

Re:Barney Spy Drones

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

So 50 cal cap and ball then. Nice steampunk flair for the drone.

Re:Barney Spy Drones

[Zcar]

I left out some details in what I wrote because I quoted the USC below which lays out the detail.

As far as federal licensing goes, either you are a 01 FFL (normal FFL dealer), 02 FFL (pawn shop FFL), or 03 FFL (Curio & Relic, aka "crusty and rusty"). There are limitations on what each one can do, for example the 03 FFL (C&R) isn't for doing business but rather for a personal collection (and what is considered collectible is regulated). The stuff you hear about regarding NFA stuff (suppressors, short barrel rifles, full auto) isn't properly called Class 3 - there is just a SOT (special occupation tax) on a regular 01 FFL. And again, several levels of that - dealer, manufacturer/repair, importer, destructive devices, etc.

Wonder what part of "shall not be infringed" this all falls under...

Getting a little tangential here, but...

There's more types of FFL than that:
Type 1: Dealer
Type 2: Pawn Shop
Type 3: Collector of Curios and Relics
Type 6: Manufacturer of ammunition other than armor-piercing
Type 7: Manufacturer of non-National Firearms Act firearms and ammunition other than armor-piercing
Type 8: Importer of non-NFA firearms and ammunition
Type 9: Dealer in non-NFA firearms and NFA destructive devices
Type 10: Manufacturer of non-National Firearms Act firearms, NFA destructive devices, and ammunition other than armor-piercing
Type 11: Importer of non-National Firearms Act firearms, NFA destructive devices, and ammunition

There are three classes of SOT for FFLs:
Class 1: Importer of NFA firearms. Requires a Type 8 or 11 FFL $1000/year ($500/year for small importers)
Class 2: Manufacturer of NFA firearms. Requires a Type 7 or 10 FFL $1000/year ($500/year for small manufacturers)
Class 3: Dealer of NFA firearms. Requires a Type 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11 FFL. $500/year.

Generally speaking, NFA firearms are:
* Fully automatic firearms (any not registered with the ATF prior to 1986 is not eligible for non-government/dealer ownership).
* Rifles under 26" (66.04 cm) overall length or with a barrel under 16" (40.64 cm) long
* Shotguns under 26" (66.04 cm) overall length or with a barrel under 18" (45.72 cm) long
* Non-sporting firearms with a bore over 0.50" (12.7mm)/explosives (grenades would all into this category)
* Sound suppressors/silencers
* A somewhat nebulous category - Any Other Weapon

Any NFA firearms not imported prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act are not generally legal for citizens (there are a couple of very small loopholes here). Any NFA firearm requires a $200 tax to be paid to transfer to a person or non-SOT or for a non-SOT to make EXCEPT an Any Other Weapon only has a $5 tax to transfer (still $200 to make).

Why is it that Paparazzi are so intrusive then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't they just have a fleet of RC flying blimps to take their pictures?

Re:Why is it that Paparazzi are so intrusive then?

[element-o.p.]

Right now, it's illegal (per FAA regs) to use drones for commercial purposes. There are reports that someone has tried it anyway, but those who don't wish to draw the FAA's ire are waiting until the regs describing how and where drones can be used for commercial uses are finalized (expected some time in 2012, although that may be delayed with the recent arrest and subsequent resignation of Randy Babbit).

Re:Why is it that Paparazzi are so intrusive then?

[element-o.p.]

What about the dudes that take aerial photographs with RC helicopters for a living?

I don't know anything about them, so I'm not really qualified to answer. However, if they are using RC helicopters to do professional aerial photography in the U.S., my non-expert GUESS would be that they might not be in compliance with FAA regs. The biggest question in my mind -- and IANAL, so take this for what it's worth (i.e., nothing) -- is "does an RC helicopter qualify as a 'drone'?" or does "drone" imply some type of autonomous flight capability? If the FAA considers a remotely piloted aircraft to be a drone, then I suspect they are only getting away with it because they haven't drawn attention to themselves yet.

And I'm pretty sure spying on the police for the sake of protestors is "non-commercial" activity.

In general I would agree, although I don't know if an FAA lawyer would. After spending a lot of time studying FAA regs and case studies (I'm a licensed pilot and flight instructor so believe me, I've spent a lot of time trying to decipher what is and what is not kosher by the FAA's standards), I can think of a lot of non-intuitive cases where the FAA might rule that something that was a "commercial" use, even though it wasn't intended to be so. The FAA's interpretation of what constitutes a flight "for hire or compensation" in full-scale aircraft has gotten a lot of pilots in hot water, even though they thought they were conducting a legitimate non-commercial operation. Furthermore, a lot of states have taken a very dim view of private citizens photographing or shooting video of police officers on duty, so even if the FAA doesn't object to this type of activity, there is a better than even chance that you could still find yourself in legal hot water for doing so.

Already started... sort of

[Jason Levine]

Hot Wheels now makes a toy car that you can drive around and record video. It's only a matter of time before they (or another company) expands into video remote controlled planes. I'd love to fly an RC plane around a local park with my kids and then offload the video to show them what it looked like from the plane's point of view.

Re:Already started... sort of

[Speare]

Don't fly in parks.

There are "park flier" models that would be suitable for flying in a large and empty double soccer field sized space. However, adding cameras and other equipment can easily double the weight, which affects the flying safety.

Responsible helicopter and airplane modelers go to reserved land areas to do their flying. There are serious injuries due to blunt force and propeller slicing every year. Deaths and permanent disfigurements are not unheard of. When these injuries happen to non-participants, it just invites tougher laws against unlicensed hobby flying.

Re:Already started... sort of

[LWATCDR]

Sorry to reply to my own message but I left out this link http://www.nitroplanes.com/sm18gfpvmivi.html

Re:Already started... sort of

[SJHillman]

Let's hope Visual Kitty works better than Acoustic Kitty did in the 60's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Kitty

Re:Already started... sort of

[CohibaVancouver]

I'd love to fly an RC plane around a local park with my kids and then offload the video

Here's an extreme version:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/12/how-a-rc-airplane-buzzed-the-statue-of-liberty-with-no-arrests.ars

Re:Already started... sort of

[element-o.p.]

I've got a Hawkeye Heli, which is probably similar to the one you saw (if it's not the same thing). It's fine indoors, but not so great outside. First, the RC controls operate via infrared LEDs. In the sunlight, the transmitter is swamped by the sun, making the heli uncontrollable (basically, it will climb to about 20-30 feet, spinning at ~60rpm the whole time, then cut the engine and plummet to the ground). Second, it's so light -- and only marginally stable -- that if there is even the slightest breeze, it's again uncontrollable. Third, the range is extremely limited, like 50 feet or less. Finally, the camera is rather poor. The frame rate is so low that the video blurs every time you yaw the heli, and in a year of playing with the heli, I can count on one hand the number of still photos that weren't blurred beyond recognition. It's a fun toy, but not something that is actually useful for anything. If you want a real covert surveillance platform, you'll need to spend at least an order of magnitude more.

If I get a chance, I'll post some video from the heli on youtube and link to it here.

Re:Already started... sort of

[element-o.p.]

Go to youtube and search for "RC FPV". There's lots of video of people doing exactly that.

In Maryland you will be arrested

[Perl-Pusher]

If you filmed a policeman raping a women with your cellphone, they would arrest you.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/maryland-police-once-again-use-wiretapping-laws-to-crack-down-on-videographers

Re:In Maryland you will be arrested

[batquux]

Well if he was using your cellphone to rape her, I can see why they might want to question you.

Re:In Maryland you will be arrested

[Bardwick]

Not anymore. Several court cases completely shot this down. Some cops in isolated areas might not have gotten the message yet. About a half dozen people have been "charged" with it, but no one that I know was convicted. From your own link: “Cell phones are so pervasive,” the prosecutor said, “that recording something that occurs in public raises a question of whether or not it’s unlawful. If I’m convinced this was a public encounter that just happened to be recorded, I probably will not proceed with the prosecution. The facts will probably bear out that it was not a private one-on-one conversation.”

Re:In Maryland you will be arrested

[russotto]

Not anymore. Several court cases completely shot this down. Some cops in isolated areas might not have gotten the message yet. About a half dozen people have been "charged" with it, but no one that I know was convicted.

They get the message, they just don't care. They'll arrest you, take your stuff, let you spend time in jail, and then maybe you'll be found not guilty. Nothing will happen to the cop. Until such deliberate abuse of laws is punished by the cop being taken out back of the courthouse and hanged on the spot, they will continue.

You know a technology has matured...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when they start using it in toys.

Night vision goggles, wireless surveillance cameras, and now spy drones, all available at your local toy store.

Not to worry.

[melikamp]

Only a terrorist would spy on police with a toy UAV. And thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, any such terrorist can be detained by the military indefinitely and without trial, even if a US citizen arrested on US soil. That should teach them, right?

Re:Not to worry.

[sed quid in infernos]

Only a terrorist would spy on police with a toy UAV. And thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, any such terrorist can be detained by the military indefinitely and without trial, even if a US citizen arrested on US soil. That should teach them, right?

The NDAA says nothing about whether its detention provisions apply to U.S. citizens. And by that, I mean it explicitly says nothing:

Section 1021(e). AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Note there may be some ambiguity about whether this provision applies to all U.S. citizens or only U.S. citizens captured or arrested in the U.S. Link. I tend to think it covers all U.S. citizens, all lawful resident aliens of the U.S., and all people captured or arrested in the U.S. Regardless, though, it's clear that any power the government has to detain U.S. citizens arrested on U.S. soil is NOT "thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." If such power exists, it existed before the NDAA.

The Supreme Court has not definitively settled the issue. In Hamdi it ruled that authorization to use military force grants power to detain citizens captured on a foreign battlefield. Padilla, which dealt with a U.S. citizen captured in the U.S., was resolved by his indictment and conviction before the Supreme Court can rule on the issue. Thus, whether the government can detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil is unsettled as a national question.

There are plenty of reasons to think the NDAA bad. When attacking the law, we should focus on what it does, not what it explicitly states it does not do. Expanding the detention power with respect to tcitizens captured on U.S. soil is one of the things it does not do.

Re:Not to worry.

[Curunir_wolf]

Can't wait until some future President (a la Nixon, and then some) declares the Democratic Party to be a terrorist organization.

Yep. It's always "the other guy" people are afraid of having power, but handing it to their own guy is a-okay. According to Rand Paul:

There are laws on the books right now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?”

Sounds like it's not "Democrats" on the list these days. Frankly, things are moving so fast, I'm starting to wonder how many elections they're going to actually allow to happen - or to recognize, anyway.

Re:dEer Snata..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read his post above, he's also trying to film his family members in the shower. It's possible he has some mental issues...

Re:well duh

[durrr]

Car batteries are Lead-acid. In case you missed Elementary Elements 101 then i can reveal to you that lead is heavy as fuck, as such car batteries have abysmal energy to weight ratio.
Lithium polymer is where the money's at, but you'll still be hard pressed to achive hour long flight times. Some bird-wannabe thermal updraft gliders that can run motor on low or no could probably achive it on a good day, but if you're looking at helicopter/quadcopter style craft you'll probably not get much more than ~10 minutes with a decent one.
There are of course fast charge batteries that you can forcefeed at ~10A or more(and drain at ~60), so with a handfull of spare batteries to keep charging while you're out flying you could probably manage to get quite decent total uptime.

if i could buy one i would

[FudRucker]

a nice little wireless helicopter with a camera on it, i would buzz my neighborhood, what a great way to keep an eye out for crime, (i bet neighborhood watch programs would love those things)

Re:if i could buy one i would

[element-o.p.]

Yes, but there are many autopilots that can relieve the operator from the duties of flying so that they can focus on operating the camera. Also, I could be mistaken, but I believe quadcopters/multicopters might be a little easier to fly than a conventional helicopter. At least, in my (admittedly entry-level) research into the subject, multicopters seem to be the platform of choice for most drone hobbyists (excluding fixed-wing designs, at least).

Toys for the big boys

[OzPeter]

DIY drones I have seen video from there of sub $1000 UAVs that will follow a GPS controlled flight path, stop at waypoints and take video towards the desired direction. What else do you want?

Custodiret Eos

[FellowConspirator]

I have always mused about how a grass-roots citizen intelligence agency that monitors the government and it's agents might be realized. It's not a matter of turn-about being fair play, but one of the notion of checks and balances. The US system of government only functions properly to the degree that it's transparent and accountable. There's lots of practical issues, not the least of which is that closely monitoring the government or blowing the whistle can often be illegal under current law. Nonetheless, Anonymous already exists as a Citizen's Intelligence Agency of sorts, and I think that's a trend that will continue.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Custodiret eos,

Re:ffs

[Luckyo]

Most of the real predators don't shoot missiles, and none shoot bullets. Too heavy. The real killers are significantly heavier drones like reapers, specifically designed as weapon platforms.

Of course, there are also ground versions of the drones, and those can come with machineguns. But these aren't very popular (yet).

Rhetorical or Not?

[Bob9113]

People are concerned about government use of domestic surveillance drones, but how is that different than what happens when people make their own drones, or buy them at a toy store?

I can't tell if your question is rhetorical or not, because it doesn't work as a rhetorical (the simple, obvious answer is false). So here goes the straight-man answer:

1. Private citizens are not (generally) using taxpayer money to do so.

2. Private citizens do not (generally) have the authority to incarcerate other people.

3. Private citizens are supposed to monitor civil servants even when there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

4. Private citizens are not (generally) supposed to engage in surveillance of other private citizens under any conditions.

5. Civil servants are not supposed to engage in surveillance of private citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

6. Civil servants are not supposed to buy or build things unless it is the public will that they do so (this can be an implicit will interpreted by civil leaders such as chiefs of police).

7. Private citizens are not supposed to be inhibited in buying or building things unless the thing in question has been specifically regulated through the legislative process or other due deliberative process authorized by the people.

Hope that helps.

Re:Rhetorical or Not?

[Forbman]

4. Private citizens are not (generally) supposed to engage in surveillance of other private citizens under any conditions.
You obviously don't live in a housing development with CCRs (deed restrictions on what you can do with "your" house) or a HOA (home owners association, like with a condominium or housing development), that is monitored by a bunch of really angry busy bodies, or anywhere else where some of your neighbors have nothing better to do than concern themselves with the business of everyone else. Or a neighborhood bully. Or get on the wrong side of the neighborhood watch committee for a flippant comment questioning their authoritah.

Re:Rhetorical or Not?

[Bob9113]

>> 3. Private citizens are supposed to monitor civil servants even when there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

> Where did you get this from?

John Adams:

The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Since agents of government must be granted the power to endanger the public liberty in order to do their jobs, they can never be trusted. Lacking trust, the public must observe and hold accountable.

Also, attributed to various people, and in a number of variations going back at least to John Philpot Curran in 1790:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

It is not possible to have liberty, in any substantive definition of the term, without the governed knowing what their servants in government are doing in their name.

And most importantly, of course, by pure reason. We The People grant extraordinary powers over individual liberty to our government. Our government has the ability to incarcerate and even kill citizens. It is a very valuable service that our civil servants provide, but it is inherently in tension with liberty. That power, unless balanced by diligent public scrutiny, would most grievously infringe the most basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Re:Already done

[TheLink]

In Soviet Russia, citizens spy on police!

Re:well duh

[rodrigoandrade]

It still mostly works, it's only the hold position feature that stops working.

Then you're holding it wrong.

Already happened in Russia

[Animats]

This happened in Russia already. There was something of a flap over a small UAV observing pro-democracy protests in Moscow. But it wasn't the Government doing it. It was a group of bloggers with a model helicopter, and here are the pictures it took.

Re:Seen at Fry's (or is that Spy's?)

[element-o.p.]

Do you remember the caption at the beginning of that movie? IIRC, it was something like, "The weapons and systems depicted in this movie are real and in use today." At the time, I was like, "Yeah, right" but middle-class hobbyists today have access to surveillance equipment that is every bit as good -- if not better -- than the surveillance equipment on Blue Thunder, and they are just about as quiet as . 'Course, I've yet to see a DIY Drone that carries a gun like Blue Thunder had ;)