Slashdot Mirror
VA Governor Wants Military Drones For Police
New submitter Screen404-O writes "During a radio interview, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell suggested that using unmanned drones to assist police would be 'great' and 'the right thing to do.' 'Increased safety and reduced manpower are among the reasons the U.S. military and intelligence community use drones on the battlefield, which is why it should be considered in Virginia, he says. ... McDonnell added Tuesday it will prove important to ensure the state maintains Americans' civil liberties, such as privacy, if it adds drones to its law enforcement arsenal.' Is this the next step toward militarizing our law enforcement agencies? How exactly can they ensure our privacy, when even the Air Force can't?"
We can call them the transvaginal ultra drones...
Anything not to get off their behinds, isn't it?
Is that you?
So, do they want them for the ability to conduct unmanned remote assassinations? Or do they think the drones are going to be able to give speeding and parking tickets?
By making sure that even you don't have access to them. In a completely unrelated set of events, other English speaking G7 countries have announced new immigration systems that are very friendly to high value occupations that typically employ people with enough brains to get out while the getting's good.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We can ensure better individual privacy through more surveillance of all individuals. While I think certain arguments can be made that drones are effectively like helicopters employed by many police departments they take things a step further. They are less invasive than helicopters making it easier for the police to monitor the unsuspecting public. If drones are adopted by police departments without clear laws on when and how they can be used we are looking at further erosion of our fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. I'm all for giving police reasonable powers to protect the public good. But, when it becomes too easy for them to violate my constitutional rights without proper checks and balances I draw the line.
I want public Video cameras all over the VA governors mansion and private home.
He can have the drones as soon as he let's us install tons of cameras all over in his home that allow anyone to watch him.
If he is against it, what is he hiding?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Cameras can do the same job, are much cheaper, don't need supervision and can be set up not to be intrusive. A policeman controlling a drone that's patrolling an area could just as well get on his bike and do the patrol himself.
What is up these politician's asses? Besides their heads, I mean.
This isn't a war. But some of the politicians seem dead set on making it one.
Hint, politicians: today it is not only quite possible, but not even that difficult to make a drone-killing missile in one's basement, complete with propeller- or heat-seeking electronics. And they'd never see it coming. ("Missile" might be misleading: it might be simpler and cheaper to make a self-guided ballistic projectile.)
I'm not suggesting that I would do that. I don't even have a basement. But you can count on the fact that somebody would.
I don't live in Virginia. I will say up front I do not the camel's nose to come under a tent in Virginia, nor any other state.
However, let's take a deep breath and ask how, specifically, unmanned aerial vehicles will help the mission of the Virginia police forces. And how and where, specifically, will they operate?
If the people of Virginia don't get a specific answer, then I think it's fair for them to deny the proposal on a variety of grounds. Without a specific mission in mind it is unlikely that drones will save money (they'd be just expensive new equipment with no clear purpose). Without a specific operational plan it is unlikely the drones will operate in a way compatible with FAA regulations and, oh yes, a little thing I call THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
However if one were to object without hearing the specific plan first, one could more easily be dismissed as alarmist.
I would even concede there is a remote possibility that a reasonable and effective police application of drones exists. None has not occurred to me so far.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
So he won't mind if my friends & I take turns having our drones follow him around ?
Why would you want drones in the sky over civilian areas? Aren't police with cars good enough to keep the peace? Does there have to be a "EYE IN THE SKY" flying overhead for people to feel safe? ---------- I happen to think that this is more about making BIG Dollars for drone manufacturers, than anything law enforcement requirements related. -------- Or maybe America is keen on showing the world, once more, how NOT TO RUN a country? ------ Stupid, stupid, stupid this whole "Police Drones" business. Reminds me of the creepy spider ID bots in Minority Report.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
What I want to know is how these drones are more of a threat to privacy than a manned helicopter flying around doing the same thing.
Send him to watch Robocop, he will lovet it!
Because maned helicopters are far more expensive and don't have the loiter time of a drone maybe.
Yes, police drones with Hellfire missles, backed by Civil asset forfeiture laws could reduce ex-urban speeding violations by 30%.
If there is meat in the cockpit it's a non-issue, be it police meat or the hundreds of thousands of recce aircraft training sorties the US had back when we used RF and RB-series aircraft.
Meatless cockpits are scary, so let's use Virginia's current Bell 407s for everything instead.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I can see it now: "Speed enforced by UCAV".
If you do .000009 MPH over the speed limit, your car gets blown up by an AGM-114. If you have a Radar Detector, you get an AGM-88 coming at your windshield.
"Masters of Science Fiction" had an episode about exactly this... it was a bad idea.
search and rescue have them
I see a huge $ market for anti-surveillance drones . Automated swarming shouldn't be hard, right? Couple of one-shot shotguns and Bowb's your uncle. Those should be pretty small and cheap.
And then we can sell $$ them anti-anti-surveillance drones. And then we can cash in $$$ on anti-anti-anti surveillance drones. Your imagination's the limit $$$$ ! (that's four dollar signs...)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Sounds great until you recall that even the military and the industrial complex that builds the drones can't seem to keep them under control. Remember that Iran now has all the cutting edge tech of a front line drone in their front pocket and also by extension, so does China. Post-mortem conclusion is that we were arrogant about the security of our com link and failed to see this one coming though we knew that they were working hard on it. Now just suppose that they decide to hack one of these drones and fly it into a school. Who is to know that they were to blame. Pilot error, computer glitch, GPS jamming, soft/firmware issue, ... You get the idea, people die all the same. These drones are simply toys and serve no real purpose in our kind of civil society other than to monitor the odd idiot that runs from the state police for going 10 miles over the speed limit. The cost is high and the returns are low. but we can still put our heads in the sand to another civil liberty being taken away in the name of better security. BS!
With drones in the air, the access to crime scenes by news helicopters and planes will be a thing of the past. The neat thing about this issue is that the gov. can say "I didn't pass any laws restricting news access to sites, it was the feds!" since the FAA will have final determination regarding access to the airspace.
Niiiiice.
Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
There could be many more of them per police officer (let alone police force) than is feasible for helicopters.
They're much smaller and more agile, allowing access to your daughter's hot tub^W^W^W^W more private areas.
They're much easier to make silent, thus enabling stealth surveillance.
They can operate 24/7/365 in aggregate.
They'd be in the hands of people who do things like this.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
I've finally figured it out - "militarization" is a buzzword for "cops doing anything but walking a beat with no radio, no gun, and no other technology".
No, the police aren't turning in a military.
I am sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the move or Northrop Grumman's corporate HQ to Virgina in 2010, but only after a bunch of "meetings" with McDonnel.
Nope, not a thing.
In fact, I am sure Grumman is not going to win any of these contracts.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/apr/26/grumgat26_20100426-184201-ar-156839/
Civil-liberties-wise, what exactly is the difference between a remotely-piloted drone and a helicopter?
I think it's a silly idea and not of much use, but I'm not seeing civil liberties implications here.
Cost, obviously. Having a bunch of cheap drones flying around would make it easier for the state to do things like this:
http://www.readthehook.com/101282/2-plants-citizen-terrorized-swat-team-pot-raid
Now he wants them in the air. I can't help but think Governor Ultrasound here is just some pervy wanker.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
It's not that different but... Flying helicopter is expensive. Flying drones can be a lot cheaper and lead to mass surveillance. This is where I see a problem.
#Drone
Cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, much better time on station, much less noticeable by the general population.
#Helicopter
Expensive on fuel, maintenance, louder, more noticeable, Pilot can only remain on station so long due to fatigue.
As far as civil liberties go, I don't believe in using either of them to monitor the general populace. However, it is much more feasible for them to send a drone up. With a helicopter, they only usually send one up if they really need it (Usually for hot pursuit or if they're doing one of their usual Aerial Vascar campaigns.
How long until there are Republican and Democrat controlled drones?
As a replacement for a helicopter for trailing fleeing suspects, drones are great. They're way way cheaper, have more endurance, and are less obvious to the suspect. There's no extra privacy implication for using a drone for that instead of a helicopter. But of course, once you have the drone, you might be tempted to just let it hang out "monitoring", which is more troublesome.
Perhaps the governor of VA would also like a few ED-209's for redlight duty?
The main thing I could see them making sense for is replacing helicopters for following suspects if on a chase (a drone would be a lot cheaper and you could have a few engaged). But there are of other valid peaceful governmental uses of drones:
* Surveying the city. You could use them to get an idea of what areas of town needed more work than others. You could do weekly flyovers just to see if streetlights were out in an area. You could build up a highly detailed aerial map of your city/county/state and then let the people make use of that data to make cool mapping products.
* Work in tandem with other sensors to get video on an area where needed ASAP. Video of traffic accidents moments after they occur (or any sudden drop in traffic speed). Video of an area where gunshot detectors picked up shots.
I don't at all understand the concern over drones, they are simply cameras that are more mobile than traditional surveillance cameras. Are people concerned with drones also concerned that police cars have cameras in them?
Obviously if you included weapons on the drones that's a whole different matter, but I've not heard anyone say they are considering weaponizing them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can't wait for this + the revolution. It's going to be so fun shooting them down.
Question everything
None. There's no constitutional right to anonymity, yet, AFAIK. There's barely a constitutional right to privacy, the leading cases being those which protect women's reproductive choices and homosexuals' sex lives. Ironically, in opposing these things conservatives are systematically eroding the only basis in constitutional law protecting a right to privacy from government per se (that is, intrusion by _laws_, instead of men). Mere procedural rules of evidence, such as Search & Seizure constraints, are usually no protection at all given the myriad defenses the gov't has, such as good faith.
...the U.S. military and intelligence community use drones on the battlefield, which is why it should be considered in Virginia
...it will prove important to ensure the state maintains Americans' civil liberties, such as privacy
But wait! There's more!
Does the Governer of Virginia speak English?
subject says it all. Lets move to a star chamber of justice. more convenient -- ooops is that the soviet union and/or china -- wtf happened to the USA that we used to admire?
How exactly can they ensure our privacy, when even the Air Force can't?
Who said anything about privacy?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Because if they start looking into houses with unmanned drones and listening to everyone I'm sure there are enough laws to lock up everyone I know.
This is not just a bad idea, it's a treasonous idea. Unless we are declaring war on American citizens there is no reason to destroy communities with these drones. What is next? Allowing the police to attach guns and bombs to these drones?
Give me surveillance or give me death!
Of course they don't want to use the drones to assassinate American citizens. They just want to arrest American terro er... I mean criminals.
Everyone rallies to protest the idea of the police having move capable and modern surveillance and tracking tools, until they discover the criminal who victimized them will not be apprehended because the nearest traditional police patrol unit was five miles away trapped in traffic or stuck behind the 90% of motorists who can't be bothered to yield the right-of-way to first responders driving to an emergency.
That is the question we should be asking. We have a right to know what the police are hoping to find with this surveillance.
What I want to know is how these drones are more of a threat to privacy than a manned helicopter flying around doing the same thing.
If you don't understand the privacy implications of UAVs, how about if they were made really small, smaller than birds? small like insect small, like fly small, and were spread by the tens of thousands throughout the city to pick up conversations, capture video, etc?
Spire said it right, this sort of thing scales ridiculously easily. The drones will get smaller, fly for longer, get smarter, and there will eventually be thousands of them swarming an area. Honestly if this doesn't disturb you then wait until nano technology allows for even better surveillance.
because they want to spy though your 10th floor window to see what you are doing
oh wait wrong country and time .....or is it....
I suggest we all read up on our civil liberties, presumption of innocence, and the 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments of the constitution. Here's a quick recap, in case anyone slept through school
Presumption of innocence, aka "innocent until proven guilty" under drone surveillance suffers the same as current red light cameras, in that they provide no ability to confront your accuser (more on that later) and they presume guilt. Have you ever received on of those red-light-camera tickets. I've received two, neither for me or my car, and both presuming my guilt and with LENGTHY instructions for how to pay up and plead guilty... and with a tiny little footnote about how to plead innocent. The most recent was over 6 months ago, and I'm *STILL* going through the process. The first one took over a year to deal with. The current system is tantamount to extortion, "pay $500 for this blurry picture that may or may not be your car and might not even show you driving, or spend the next year going back and forth between courts and cops to clear your good name."
Can you imagine this system getting any BETTER for the people with unmarked mobile cameras?
Constitutional Amendments -
4 : Protection from unreasonable searches, sets the rules for search warrants and probable cause. - What probable cause do the cops have to potentially tail any person they want, remotely, 24/7, without a warrant? None. If you can get a warrant, you can put a real cop on the case.
6 : Right to a fair trial, and the rights to confront your accuser, obtain witnesses and defend yourself. - How does one confront a drone? How do I obtain witnesses and prove my innocence if a drone accuses me of speeding 3 weeks ago.
9 : Protects all civil rights not stated here. - Basically a catch all that protects you from getting fucked by the government you in ways unforeseen at the time of writing, like using military grade spy hardware to peep on jaywalkers.
10 : Limits the power of government to what is written in the constitution. -The same as 9, from the other direction. The government is not allowed to make up crazy shit that's not in the constitution, like using military grade spy hardware to check up on you.
14 : Privileges and immunities (among other things) which basically repeats 9 and 10, but at the state level. Virginia, or any other state, cannot make any laws which screw with the rights and freedoms granted by the constitution, like using military grade ... yeah you get the idea
. .
Seriously though people. Lets actually examine our rights, examine the governors suggested plan, and think for ourselves if they can exist together.
Finally, ponder for one second how you would feel about less-transparent hardware of this same caliber used here at home. The governor wants MILITARY drones. That's on par with guys in combat fatigues with M-16s and grenades rolling down the street in an M1A1 Abrams. That's on par with Cobras and Apache strike helicopters replacing news choppers in covering high-speed pursuits down the freeway. If that mental image doesn't disturb you in the slightest, I'm not sure what will. This is the exact same level of gear, but some people think it's okay because we can't see it as easily? Really?
Fuck. That.
This signature is false.
I would support the police use of drones for law enforcement and security purposes, on one condition which would certainly be unacceptable to the police.
EVERY police officer who uses a drone for any unauthorized purpose should be convicted of a felony and imprisoned for a minimum of a year. Every unneeded flight over a backyard; lock him up! Every observation of your children if not in the course of actual police business; lock him up. Every abuse - into the slammer.
I would support the same penalty for every participant in a no-knock drug raid on the wrong address, or based on an obviously perjured warrant, AND with every police supervisor who went along with it. I'm fine with giving the cops the POWER to do their jobs, but only if it is accompanied with the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with using that power lawfully and wisely. The police are too often careless and arrogant in the use of their power, and often abuse their authority. Police officers have an extraordinary level of power and authority; they should be held to a far higher than normal standard of behavior.
Please explain to me how an aircraft that has to be airworthy to be flown over the civilian populace, and must be flown by a competent professional, which we would call a pilot, can be less expensive than a similar aircraft that is simpler because it doesn't ahve all the remote bullshit built it. UAVs are more expensive. The military has demosntrated this. DHS has demonstrated this. The who MC-12 thing with the air force is because they realized that Pred wasn't as useful as a manned airplane.
The only advantage of UAVs is that getting shot at doesn't hurt.
Hey, where are all the Republican trolls who like to claim that party affiliation only gets omitted when a Democrat does something bad? This guy's not just a Republican, but as right-leaning as they come. I guess all those GOPers will have to admit that they were full of it? Hahaha, as if.
And for the record, I couldn't care less which party he's from, and I happen to agree with him on this issue. I've got no problem with the government using unmanned drones to handle tasks previously performed by men in helicopters. I just enjoy pointing out how jaw-droppingly dishonest GOP cheerleaders are.
McDonnell added Tuesday it will prove important to ensure the state maintains Americans' civil liberties, such as privacy, if it adds drones to its law enforcement arsenal.'
I'll be more worried about them deciding to launch a missile into a crowded supermarket because there might be a dangerous jaywalker hiding inside.
Sounds as if some of the republicans want them in place now, as the economic collapse they have been initiated to gain control of the White House seems to have accelerated faster than they expected it to. Seems as if things were a lot closer to the edge than they thought. Wonder if the drone plants in Mississippi will have sufficient capacity to meet the demand necessary to protect the entire 1%. What happens when the 99% find out? It pretty clear that Keynes and Krugman are right. Wonder if there will be time for the rest of the republicans to catch on?
Well our military industrial establishment is at least consistent in one thing, they don't treat US citizens and differently than they do Al Qeida. Anything for the cause I guess. We all shall be extinct soon.
No. Its your mind. I know because I have to get up every morning and battle mine.
This is America...the police can walk right up and talk to you, question your friends, hire informants, or simply park outside your house and watch for a lot less money than a single drone flight. Its not like these guys are trying to carry out surveillance in a war zone where hostile people can open fire with automatic weapons at any moment. There are no roadside bombs.
Start militarizing the police and turning the nation into Stalinist USSR and that might change very fast.
I would like to start off with the fact that I am a full supporter of smaller government, and civil liberties, but at the same time I am also a hobbiest pilot of an FPV Aircraft, which pretty much is a UAV/Drone/etc though much cheaper, and only used for fun :)...
First thing I would like to point out is a difference in terminologies....
Drone: This word was first thought up around WWII, drones where basically automated aircraft designed to be used as target practice. Today it is somewhat of an all encompassing word, and even the agencies involved do not use this terminology for what the police are going to be using.
UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is a little more modern all encompassing word for an aircraft that is NOT manned, but has been dropped by most agencies for the UAS acryonym.
UAS: Unmanned Aerial System is the current term used by military, FAA, and most other agencies, there are also varients such as sUAS, or Small Unmanned Aerial System.
For one the government just recently made legal civil use of UAS systems for commercial purposes, and the FAA are required to have regulations in place by 2015 for the integration of UAS systems into the NAS (National Air Space). At current an FAA waiver is required, which is quite tough to obtain. Once these regulations are in place a lot more people then just military and police will have UAS systems in the air! Now one of the kickers is there are weight limits, with much tougher permits required for heavier weight. The UAS systems most police force are going to use are going to be in that 25lb category. At these weights and sizes most of these things will not be able to be in the air for more then a few hours at max, most less then 1 hour. They also are not THAT smart, if you think they are going to be hovering over the highway looking for speeders that is just silly, atleast anytime soon. What they will be used for is mainly to replace helicopters, or for police forces that just straight up can't even afford a helicopter or who have to be super picky about what they fly a helicopter for, as it costs many thousands of dollars to put a bird in the air for a few hours, these UAS systems will be electric, and will only cost the price of electrity to the charge the batteries, maintaince, and labor costs of operation.
I do not support the police hovering around doing survailence, but at the same time lets be realistic... it is safer then a real helicopter, it has much less endurance time then a real helicopter, it is capable of following the bad guy quite a bit closer then a real helicopter, and god forbid it crashes into something, it's going to do much less damage then a real helicopter (if any at all, most of these things are made of foam, plastic, or fiberglass).
The technology isn't there yet (within a police forces budget) to build a 'drone' that is going to follow you around and keep track of what you are doing, because in reality for every police drone that is out there flying there is a police officer sitting at a ground station flying it, so from a police force perspective they do not have the man power to fly multiples and have automated coverage of an area.
Cool. I would finally get a chance to try out my HERF gun.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Lets just get it over with and create skynet. Our pesky problems will be solved.
You see, this is the problem, no one has even mentioned the Posse Comitatus Act. local police cannot use military forces for local law enforcement issues. Wake up people, stop starring at your computer screens,and trying to get that next level on your game console. I'm not a fanatic, I just know what my rights are do you?
A call comes in. A gas station has been robbed and a large blue car sped away. There are twelve major intersection in my town and all of a sudden twelve drones stationed atop traffic poles ascend upward giving a camera view in all four directions. The chances of the car being spotted approach 100%.
Another scene : A drive by goes down and witnesses call in claiming AK-47s were used from inside the car. The cops spot the car but want to send in drones to see if an ambush is likely before putting cops as well as the public at risk. The drone gets an image through a window and four men with AK-47s on the table are talking nervously. The next thing they know a drone comes right through the window carrying a grenade. Case closed. Good guys win and bad guys blown to chunks.
In other words drones can make life better for those who are not criminals. I would not mind having a drone to help me find schooling fish when I am out fishing. The new hobby type quad copters could work well for me. I'm not too worried about the privacy of a fish.
You have a constitutional right to EVERYTHING. The government can only limit those rights in the manner described by the constitution.
I repeat this time and time again, hopefully it will stick with a few. The only thing the Constitution does is define a subset of rights which the government 'shall not' infringe. Everything else, you've got it, unless the government is given the authority over it.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Good intentions ... meet the path to hell. The point of a drone is spying. By default, the subject's privacy will be invaded.
In fact, any time the camera is pointed at a private residence is an act of spying.
If they're used by the police... they're not "military drones" they're "police drones."
Just like helicopters used by the police are "police helicopters."
Increased safety and reduced manpower are among the reasons the U.S. military and intelligence community use drones on the battlefield, which is why it should be considered in Virginia, he says.
Virginia is a battlefield?
Anything you give the military sooner or later will be used on you.
Think of that when you support a budget many times that of any other country,
while you let your poor go without.
This is just a way for McDonnell to pay off his contributors in the military industrial security complex.
Hear, hear.
The 9th amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
The very reason many opposed a Bill of Rights in the first place was that it could be interpreted as denying those rights not specifically enumerated. As such I think the 9th Amendment is one of the most important in the Bill of Rights. Sort of a conclusion to capture the essence of the entire Bill of Rights:
These are some things the Government cannot meddle with. We shouldn't have to say this, but just to be on the safe side we've listed some of them here anyway, don't take this list to be complete, and don't suggest that those rights not listed don't exist or are any less important than those that were listed.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I thought Drones are for extremely hostile places where you risk the loss of life if it was manned, because the hostile environment attacks strange objects hovering on their head.
-- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
While as a Virginia resident this certainly SOUNDS creepy, is it really any different than the police having helicopters? It's cheaper and safer, and something tells me that the VA state police won't spring for the hellfire option on their Drones.