Slashdot Mirror
Domestic Surveillance Drones On the Rise
Toe, The writes "Predator drones have now racked up over 10,000 hours of airtime in the U.S., largely for immigration enforcement. Homeland Security reports that drone operations lead to the apprehension of 4,865 undocumented immigrants and 238 drug smugglers in the past six years. Compare that to 327,577 illegal migrants caught at the southwest border in fiscal 2011. The only limits on their surveillance are FAA regulations keeping them away from crowded urban areas, and this is for safety reasons, not privacy. While the drones cannot see through windows, they certainly see a lot of what goes on in the (former) privacy of peoples' yards. The article cites Michael Kostelnik from the Office of Air and Marine for the Border Protection service saying he's never been challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. 'Instead the question is: Why can't we have more of them in my district?'"
Every time I see one of these domestic drone stories, I'm reminded of that scene in Blue Thunder where Roy Scheider, having seen a demonstration of the deadly helicopter, says something along the lines of "You don't expect to use that thing for law enforcement, do you?" to his government minder. The guy just looks creepily at him and replies "Well, that would depend on the CIRCUMSTANCES, wouldn't it?"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
All you have to do is blitz the raido waves with garbage, wait for it to go into "home" mode, spoof the GPS signal, and you got yourself a hot sell on ebay.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
The Mexico/US border doesn't move a lot. I don't understand why UAV surveillance of it is increasing, while the Boeing system of fixed cameras failed after a $1e9 investment. It seems like fixed cameras would be much cheaper than keeping planes in the air, and would create fewer privacy concerns.
Not so long ago, this type of spying on U.S. residents was seemingly so out of the question. I never heard anything about this when growing up (and I'm not all that old). It says something about our country that this is how we're using our technological advancement -- especially when it's not just spying on potential drug dealers or illegal immigrants, but also spying on average citizens behaving themselves. One could (and probably will) argue "what's the problem if you're not doing something wrong?" The problem is this: not everyone wants to be watched, no matter what they're doing. Privacy is something that every human being innately desires and this is encroaching upon that basic need. Also, one could also argue: why should perfectly well-behaved citizens be spied upon when they're not doing anything wrong? The problem here, innately, is this isn't like the cops on the highway sitting in the corners by trees just eagerly waiting for someone to go by at 100mph because in that case not everyone is actually being watched. When the radar beeps, the cop knows who to pay attention to and nothing is really recorded (except for perhaps the camera on the dash recording you after you're pulled over). Whereas with spying, information is recorded about everyone and not just those breaking laws. There needs to be something in place to either anonymize or delete data that's not relevant to court cases.
The bottom line: years ago, this type of behavior seemed out of the question and now the U.S. has become just as bad as the countries we badmouth every day. There's something really disturbing about the direction we're heading in.
While we're correcting them, they're not "undocumented immigrants", they're illegal immigrants.
This space for rent, inquire within.
It actually makes a lot more sense to produce drugs locally, except we could also legalize it and completely eliminate the violent crime aspect.
They announced the SC National Guard is going to start practicing with UAVs. The National Guard unit is one specifically tasked to civil disorder operations and "homeland security"......
http://www.thestate.com/2011/12/21/2087491/sc-guard-unit-to-fly-small-uav.html
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
any source that measures the rate in fiscal years at which immigrants are incarcerated
and any source that implies floundering white flight suburbia has somehow become inoculated against any need for drone surveillance in the 21st century, yet dense urban areas are teeming shit-holes that must be policed and patrolled up to the minute.
I live in downtown Los Angeles. our "drones" are piloted police helicopters affectionately referred to as "the birds" which have canvassed the city for nearly 40 years. They started downtown when white-flight basically mandated them to prevent the scourges of economic collapse and urban decay from ever encroaching upon bob and his trophy wife in the burbs. soon they began patrolling hollywood, and santa monica, and pretty soon the ubiquitous helicopter-with-searchlight was patrolling the skies of every street in LA from sepulveda to sierra madre villa. its simple. if you dont like drones, dont accept them. address problems like crime, unemployment, and social inequality and for god sake recognize the fact that every meal you've eaten at a restaurant in the past year has at some point been prepared on some level by an "illegal."
or dont do anything about the problem. blame victims, move away from trouble neighbourhoods and avert your eyes. vote the party line and soon enough, you'll enjoy all the wonders police state surveillance at cost to you.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I mean, seriously US - what the hell is wrong with you lot?
(And if any of you think I'm trolling - drink less cool aid)
Steady on, that sounds suspiciously like common sense. If you start applying that to narcotics control, who knows what might happen?
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm
Oh, wait. They already have. Shadowhawk UAVs are being deployed with taser shotguns.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
1. There may well be people who have US citizenship (and therefore be entirely legal) who have no documentation to prove it (and thus be undocumented). I'm not going to pretend that this would be a large number, but if there is even one such person then they are an undocumented immigrant not an illegal immigrant. This would include US legitimate tourists who have been robbed, people born out of the country with at least one legitimate US parent, etc. The former can apply to the consulate, but that assumes they're rational. Rational people are an endangered species. The latter may or may not have access to the consulate, even if theory says they should have.
2. In the US (not sure about your country), a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Well, that's the theory, at least. Legal doctrine therefore states these people -cannot- be "illegal immigrants" until proven such. In part, this is due to (1), but it's also because you don't want some mad Arizonian sheriff arresting anyone who "looks funny" and deporting them without lawful right to do so. And, no, saying someone "looks funny" is not a lawful right.
3. Once a person is at a detention centre, there is NO evidence of where they were arrested. There are corrupt police - hopefully not many, but it's definitely non-zero. It would not take much to take a lawful US citizen from within the US and make it appear like they're illegally there, especially if said citizen has no documentation on them (ie: they're undocumented). It's entirely plausible for police to eliminate homelessness by dumping the homeless over the border, and for hospitals to eliminate mental illness the same way. (You've seen the stories on hospitals dumping patients in skid row.) These would not be illegals, these would be undocumenteds.
I cannot tell from a police report or a media photo whether the person was legally entitled to be in the US. Nor can you. Nor can anyone. That is why we have courts. Judge without knowledge at your peril, because it is inevitable that when a society converts a potential for a crime into a crime in itself, you WILL be judged without knowledge yourself. And that's a path that goes downhill FAST.
(Most of those who are passionate about convicting without prosecuting would do well to remember that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions" -- not intentions that are actually good, merely intentions you can fool yourselves into believing are good.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yes and the chip foundries engage in bloody turf wars over who get to supply Apple with the next batch of A5 chips.
You are completely missing the point. Legalizing drugs isn't to get production local. It is to neuter the criminal organizations that currently control drug production and distribution.
Predator drones cost $3,234/hour to operate, according to Customs and Border Protection. TFA pegs the up-front cost of the drones as $20 million each (and CBP has eight of them and is buying one more). That means in total they've spent more than $200 million on this little boondoggle.
Even assuming that every single one of those arrests wouldn't have been made at all without the drone, that's over $41,000 per arrest in surveillance costs alone.
It doesn't sound like CBP is producing a great ROI.
Porquoi?
Didn't ANYBODY but me notice this? That the drones are apparently hangared -- and more importantly flown from -- a naval base?
The military has absolutely no place being involved in any kind of domestic surveillance at all. This is by far the MOST worrisome aspect of the whole thing! Yet nobody else yet has even mentioned it.
Slashdot, what has happened to you?
Many of them did.
Many of them lost the majority of their income and power (at least until they could expand into drug distribution).
And a very few of them realized that they could still profit by playing inside the law and dropped their other criminal activities.
In any case it dramatically reduced their power and influence.
1. There may well be people who have US citizenship (and therefore be entirely legal) who have no documentation to prove it (and thus be undocumented).
I think you are deliberately misinterpreting the difference between "undocumented" and "illegal alien".
The illegal alien is not illegal because he has no documents. He is illegal because he entered the country illegally to start with, or has remained in the country in violation of his visa or other entry permit. Many people have no documents. They are not "illegal aliens" because of that.
In the US (not sure about your country), a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Well, that's the theory, at least.
That is the presumption that the government is supposed to make in a criminal case. That is NOT a presumption of fact. I.e., if someone steals a car from me, he is a criminal, period, end of sentence (no pun intended). He became a criminal and assumed guilt when he committed the crime. The government will require proof of such, and is supposed to treat him as innocent until proven guilty with regards to punishment, but I need no such proof before I do. You could try to argue with a casino or retail establishment, but they can tresspass someone for shoplifting or other crime committed on their premises without a court ajudicating the matter.
The idea that someone IS innocent until proven guilty is a logical fallacy. How he must be treated by the judicial system and what he actually is are two very different things.
And, no, saying someone "looks funny" is not a lawful right.
The AZ law regarding illegal aliens had nothing to do with deporting people because they "looked funny". Looking funny was not sufficient grounds.
I cannot tell from a police report or a media photo whether the person was legally entitled to be in the US. Nor can you. Nor can anyone.
Actually, you can tell quite a lot from a police report. "Subject was observed crossing the border into the US at MIddle of Nowhere, Texas." Taking the subject to the nearest border crossing facility and allowing him to either gain legal entry or remain in Mexico is quite reasonable.
Most of those who are passionate about convicting without prosecuting would do well to remember that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions"
Now if only those who favor ignoring federal law in their attempts at fuzzy warm feel good would remember that.
Sorry -- posse comitatus doesn't apply to the coast guard. And you get exactly one guess as to what service that "navy" hanger belongs to. Protip: It isn't the navy.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
To your example of someone stealing a car, I'd point out that yes the person who *stole* it may be guilty, but mistaken identity happens all the time and that means that you cannot go by one person's word alone that the person labelled as the thief is indeed the thief. There are all kinds of cases where vigilantes have attacked the wrong person for this very reason. Those vigilantes aren't part of the judicial system, so should they presume innocence? Yes. Obviously. Why obviously? Because the scientific method only works if you are trying to falsify things, it doesn't work if you are trying to prove things. (See Sherlock Holmes as to why this is important in criminal matters - he may be fictional, but he's a better role-model than Joe Thug.) If you start by assuming the person you think is guilty is, in fact, innocent then you can apply rigorous methods to falsify that hypothesis. Rigour is what matters.
To your example of AZ law, the Feds are investigating the sheriff in question (and seem on the verge of numerous indictments) because said sheriff DID regard that as sufficient grounds.
No, the police report only says what the police report says. Anyone can type out a document. Doesn't make the document true. Those of us from Britain are familiar with the Guildford 6 and the Birmingham 4, cases where false reports were made and falsified confessions (complete with forged signatures) were provided. We know that if these things could happen, they can happen and eventually will happen. You MUST therefore not accept any police report as being Absolute Truth, you must only accept it as being evidence offered that is no different from any other evidence, given no more or less weight, and scrutinized accordingly.
My own belief is that NO law, Federal or State, should be ignored, that ALL should be equal before the law, and that ALL evidence should be weighed and analyzed to the greatest practical* extent. Adversarial systems are something we're probably stuck with, and they serve a purpose, but monocultures are always defective and the current adversarial system in the US is definitely in the defective category.
*It would be nice if DNA evidence was analyzed by doing genomic decodes. Nice, but not practical. Maybe in 50 years. Perhaps. There will always be greater scrutiny technically possible, but you've got to draw some line or it gets absurd. In the case of DNA evidence, comparison of 8 markers isn't even remotely good enough - most labs wouldn't even break into a sweat if you upped the minimum to somewhere around 15-20. It would eliminate the false positives we're now seeing at no significant overhead in cost or time. That's an example of a practical threshold.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)