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...
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
Clarification:
There are 2 big issues here that the politicians need to start considering, much more than they have been:
(1) The fact that a certain technology CAN be used, and might even represent monetary savings, is largely a different question that whether it SHOULD be used.
(2) That improved technology works both ways: not only do you have the ability to move surveillance to the sky, but also: civilians have drastically improved ability to bring it down. And strong motivation to do so.
search and rescue have them
Ubiquitous autonomous flying robots is not the same thing at all. We dont want an automated police force because it scales far too easily.
Good-bye
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 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/
No. He speaks something that sounds like English, but the words have different meanings. It's called "Politician".
Let's see...
Requiring all cops to go through SWAT team training, which is basically small unit assault training. To, you know, catch those militant speeders.
Military grade equipment (assault rifles, military grade body armor, 'military-only' ammo for antiarmor use, etc)
Armored vehicles.
Naw, the police isn't a damned bit militarized. (/sarcasm)
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
"Why is no one asking the question if this stuff actually makes communities safer?"
Another good point. I would make that #3. And that brings up:
(4) Safety is not the end goal of all existence. You cannot make everything 100% safe without taking all the meaning and enjoyment out of life.
The only thing which keeps people safe is the fact it is too expensive to spy on every citizen. Technology (drones, GPS, etc) is reducing the cost to spy on people. This is a very bad thing.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
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.
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.
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