Slashdot Mirror


Seattle Police Want More Drones, Even While Two Sit Unused

v3rgEz writes "The Seattle Police Department is seeking to buy more unmanned aerial vehicles (a.k.a. drones) even as the two it currently owns site warehoused until the city develops a policy for their use, documents released as part of the EFF and MuckRock's Drone Census show. More frightening than the $150,000 price tag? The fact that the drone vendors market the fact that these lease agreements do 'not require voter approval.'" Does your city or town use drones?

144 comments

  1. Fans of U.S. policy abroad... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Agree that the Drones don't seem to require their vote of approval.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  2. No...... by abhi2012 · · Score: 1

    .......we have superman to look over the streets!

    1. Re:No...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unmanned, unpopular airborn drone? Sounds like skeet.

    2. Re:No...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Seattle we have Phoenix Jones. I don't see why we need any drones.

    3. Re:No...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superman hates liberals, he never visits the left coast.

    4. Re:No...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has any issue with shooting clay pigeons, because clay pigeons are fuckers.

  3. Now that's change ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... you can believe in.

    I'm not anti-Obama, I'm anti-the-major-parties.

    They're all the same shit; both at the State and Federal levels. Neither truly represents their constituents.

  4. Does your city or town use drones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why, yes, almost the entire population is one. The politician needs drones to win an election. Drones that don't ask embarrassing questions and just accept the party line are best.

    1. Re:Does your city or town use drones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't go. The Drones need you. They look up to you.

  5. sounds legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    My wife has a vagina that goes unused but^H^H^Hso I'd like a couple more to play with. What's the issue here?

    1. Re:sounds legit by snspdaarf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My wife has a vagina that goes unused but^H^H^Hso I'd like a couple more to play with. What's the issue here?

      If I was suffering from micropenis, I would keep my mouth shut.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    2. Re:sounds legit by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I was suffering from micropenis, I would keep my mouth shut.

      If you were suffering from micropenis, your mouth might be the only other thing you have to offer...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  6. I'm gonna tell Seattle Police by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    that they can get a UAV drone for free with a 3 kill streak. They probably didn't know that.

    1. Re:I'm gonna tell Seattle Police by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      A UAV kill streak is for pussies.
      Mine do not start till 6.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:I'm gonna tell Seattle Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A UAV kill streak is for pussies.
      Mine do not start till 6.

      And then you switch to rabbits?

    3. Re:I'm gonna tell Seattle Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manned attack helicopters are slightly more expensive than UAVs, right? ok.

    4. Re:I'm gonna tell Seattle Police by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I could bring one of those puppies down with a few model rocket engines and some parts from Radio Shack. Oops, almost forgot... and some cleaning supplies from the local grocery store.

      And if I don't, somebody else will. Maybe some new organization called "Unanimous" or something.

      Talk about a waste of money...

  7. Helicopters by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm curious why people see this as so much worse than the police helicopters that have been in use for decades. Is it because they cost less money, and thus can be operated more frequently? Or because people associate them with the military?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Helicopters by asmkm22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flimsy as it is, one of the more reliable defenses against privacy invasion has always been the cost and difficulty of wide-scale monitoring. So unless you are actually targeted by the police for some reason, it's pretty unlikely your actions are at all monitored. Also, there is something a little creepy about having drones flying around overhead keeping tabs on a city...

    2. Re:Helicopters by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the same reason people complain about GPS tracking on cars: they want to punish someone else for their perceived damage.

      People have some expectation of privacy in everything they do, with thresholds varying from "I don't want anyone to know anything about me" to "just don't put anything inside me except dinner". Note that this expectation is completely unrelated to how private a particular situation really is - a big open window in full view of the street isn't really reasonably private, but people still complain if someone looks in.

      When someone's expectation of privacy is broken, they get offended, and like all offended people with over-inflated senses of entitlement, they want someone else to be just as offended as they are, if not more. If someone's going to learn what grocery store they shop at, it had better involve a person standing on the sidewalk for hours handing out surveys. If the police are going to watch their movements, it should involve an officer spending their whole day in a car with a logbook, rather than ten minutes with a computer. If their neighborhood is going to be subject to aerial recording, it should cost an exorbitant amount to hire a skilled helicopter pilot, ground crew, and airport space.

      This isn't about being actually worse or even being more frequent. It's about Americans being offended and not having a built-in mechanism to force someone else to share in their frustration.

      By some definitions, that alone means these automated systems are unjust. After all "justice" is simply a feeling that my pain has returned to whomever caused it (in a nebulous, unquantifiable way).

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Helicopters by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even though they are 150k each, you can buy 10-20 for the price of 1 helicopter. Not to mention cheaper operations and easier to train a drone pilot than a real one.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    4. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because they're quieter, more versatile and easily abused. With some of the recent innovations like with the Quadrocopter there's the possibility of them being able to physically get into places where a helicopter never would.

      The concern is also that there's the potential for a very slippery slope with no obvious sense of when the push back is going to start, if it does at all. Now, if we had some idea that the constitution says that they can't do X with it and the courts will actually enforce that, I think a lot of the concern would be reduced. But SCrOTUmS seems to be fine letting the administrations do whatever they please as long as they don't make a show of not needing SCrOTUmS approval. That was the big mistake that W made, after that they started to actually assert some authority.

    5. Re:Helicopters by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      Now add in the future the predict future crimes and have an ex-hobbit tired of following Frodo around as the brains behind the operation and we are all set for a B-level sci-fi future.

    6. Re:Helicopters by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      *Ability to PREDICT the future...my fingers must already have that technology.

    7. Re:Helicopters by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      The black helicopters in "whisper mode" have been following you everywhere you go for decades too? I knew I wasn't crazy!

    8. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's stupid.

      People are upset by them because they are designed to be constantly in the air. If they were used for the same purposes as police helicopters you would only need 1 or 2. You only need more if you intend on having them constantly deployed. Knowing our local police that means they'll start using them to cite traffic violations like speeding, which most Americans don't consider a crime.

      In Virginia they still haven't answered whether or not the drones will be armed. There are serious implications if they are.

      But either way, constantly being watched by flying vehicles is an invasion of privacy. I have a reasonable expectation that if I go out for a drive, walk, to dinner etc, that the government is not spying on me constantly. What is the end game? To gather lots of small things together to make it seem like I did a crime? There is no reason to be running drones constantly. Crime rates are down across the country.

    9. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the fuck was all that I just read? Some sort of veiled complaint about people, maybe. Doesn't make much sense.

      Drones allow automated spying on citizens. There are all sorts of privacy concerns with regards to spying on citizens. It is not about degrees of irritation, it is about degrees of ease. What about cameras everywhere with face recognition software? What about cameras in your homes? What is reasonable and what is not?

      Putting flying robots in the sky that watch over us is a pretty horrible thing to some people. Even innocent people.

    10. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Police helicopters generally do not fly on a patrol, they fly on demand. They cost too much per hour to just fly around. Plus they are maintenance intensive, even if the money was there to burn up for fuel, they require a lot of short interval inspections which puts the bird out of action (the required work may take no more than a half day or so, but that's a half day minimum of unavailability). So when they are up there, they are going somewhere with something to do, not just fly. Usually to circle a perp or eyeball a freeway pileup or be one of the chase birds for a nut driver.

      Helicopters are very noisy and in no way can perform quiet surveillance. You can load them up with cameras up the wazoo, but given that they are tethered to general aviation airports, most of the observation would be to and from corridors to said airports.

      Now take drones. These are far smaller, can operate longer, and capable of being quiet enough that at mid-VFR altitudes (assuming the FAA plays ball) that they are likely to be inaudible against the usual city noise. Now you have a practical spy platform that looks into people's yards (Homeowners and rental tenants do have an expectation of privacy from observation where it's not normally humanly practical). They can be flown more frequently since the maintenance requirements are different. With a batch of them at a PD's disposal, they could be scheduled that one or two could be always up in the air in a major city 24/7. Given that they could potentially be flown so low that they can get angle shots into buildings through windows, it's a far more effective spy platform (However if it can be flown that low, it's a flight hazard now. Normally the FAA would putting the kabosh on this. However with the current atmosphere of police state mentality, the FAA will likely to roll over for law enforcement "needs").

      One of two things would kill drone programs. The less certain path is that they greatly underestimated the costs of using drones, however if Police State Bob wants something, money is often magically found. The more certain path is when drones get hacked in flight and creatively dealt with - deliberately crashed, taken elsewhere, or they are flown as nuisances. If we get drone collisions with pedestrians or bicyclists or people in convertibles (I doubt the drones would be big enough and hefty enough to pose a certain lethal risk against people in public transportation or newer enclosed cars), when people are seriously hurt or killed - drone programs are likely to be killed right then and there. A helicopter can fail in flight (and have), but cannot be remotely hacked.

      If the military who are operating very expensive, high performance large drones equipped with weaponry and then operating these drones with pathetic security in mind (unencrypted video, easily spoofed control systems, seriously?), like having a drone taken over and landed in Iran - you can bet civilian police models who do not have the luxury of encrypted satellite links will be pwn3d all over creation.

      I do not trust the police. Any bit of technology that hands over an advantage to the police will be abused, any legal ruling that provides an inch for law enforcement will be stretched a mile wide You can expect these will be armed, with non-lethal stuff at first, but certainly will be abused. Remember how tasers were a non-lethal alternative to guns? Generally police still use guns in most situations that tasers were tasked for, but use tasers are convenient "compliance" devices, inexpensive torture devices.

      Let's stop giving the police more toys to abuse the public with.

    11. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Police helicopters are expensive to operate and require a pilot who is also quite expensive. Further, helicopters have limited flight time before they must land for refueling. Drones are relatively inexpensive, can stay aloft for extremely long times, and require no pilot. This makes them practical to use for surveillance purposes, which the government should not be conducting.

    12. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using military equipment = declaring war

    13. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about? Well, yes, if the government installed cameras or listening devices in my house, I'd be pretty pissed. Nothing wrong with being offended by something like that, and if other people happen to feel the same way, well, the government would hopefully get beaten back into shape.

    14. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Simple answer is Rule #4:
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    15. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helos, well you generally know they are there. Not so much with drones, high and quiet and zooming in on whomever... Think equivalent of a lidar in your back yard, for your behavior instead of driving.

    16. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      > It's about Americans being offended and not having a built-in mechanism to force someone else to share in their frustration.

      What you call "offended" other people call "freedom." This has nothing to do with being offended. It has everything to do with being left alone.

    17. Re:Helicopters by gallondr00nk · · Score: 2

      I'm curious why people see this as so much worse than the police helicopters that have been in use for decades. Is it because they cost less money, and thus can be operated more frequently? Or because people associate them with the military?

      Its the same problem people have with CCTV cameras or other monitoring equipment. Without proper regulations for their use by law enforcement (or private companies, for that matter), they are so cheap to buy and use that a city or country can quickly become swamped in monitoring equipment with no limits to how or where the data is used or retained.

      Expense has prohibited the rollout of a panopticon, and people who are concerned about drones (myself included) see their use as another substantial lowering of that barrier. There seems to be little appetite to regulate against it, so technology is seen as the last barrier against intrusive mass surveillance.

    18. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though they are 150k each, you can buy 10-20 for the price of 1 helicopter.

      Cite please.

      According to http://tomsum.hubpages.com/hub/How-much-does-a-Helicopter-cost a helicopter only costs 2-12 drones.

    19. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its because they can silently flyby near your house window and record you and your wife naked in details.

    20. Re:Helicopters by westlake · · Score: 1

      I'm curious why people see this as so much worse than the police helicopters that have been in use for decades.

      The use of aircraft in police work dates back to 1914.

      1929 The Los Angeles Police create a part time unit using the aircraft of citizens, In New York City the eleven year old voluntary unit is replaced by the first known full time Air Service Division with its own aircraft [24 October].

      Police Aviation - a chronology

      The geek has little sense of geography.

      The LAPD's jurisdiction covers 498 square miles (1,290 km2) with a population of 3,792,621 million people.

      San Bernardino County has an area of 20,105.32 sq mi (52,072.5 km2). Roughly four times the size of the state of Connecticut. In some states, the county's role in law enforcement is little noticed, in other states it it looms very large.

    21. Re:Helicopters by jameshofo · · Score: 1

      There's a very good reason for someone to want the police to department to have to do something manually, such as watching someone on a corner for 6 hours. Because if that person is under suspicion of a crime then there's actually a good reason for them to be under such surveillance. Taking a GPS device and attaching it to a car and claiming you know were that person was for 6 hours after that is the jump of logic that happens, shortcuts end up getting taken on something that requires slightly more interpretation than "this is were your car was".

      If you could be monitored by an automated flying camera while walking down any street for a trivial cost of the enforcement agency then why would they not monitor all activity everywhere within their control. So is that so bad? Probably, everyone would be constantly concerned about their actions even ones that were completely legal. What if we used this system for predicting behavior based on the way people went about their day? then using that data to detain people for the calculated outcome. I would not judge that as a successful thriving society, because in a successful thriving society the people in that society should not have to be monitored to maintain a semblance of peace and order.

      Take the example of traffic cameras in Maryland, how they are installing cameras to watch the cameras that are there to monitor cars. The issue around this system is that it appears to be more financially motivated. So is traffic enforcement just the tax you pay for driving your car as fast as you want?

      --
      Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
    22. Re:Helicopters by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Yeah but this is a govt helicopter. The corrupt assholes with pork the chopper cost up, buying gucci jockstraps for the police baseball league and what have you.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    23. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dogs are classified as equipment in the military. So does that mean all dog owners are declaring war?

    24. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And they aren't govt drones?

    25. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it be cheaper to train the drone pilot? Surely the task of remaining aloft is no easier whether the pilot is in the craft or not. Unless the implication is that you don't need quite the same quality because no lives (in the aircraft) are at risk? Seems unlikely you'd want any drones falling out of the sky.

    26. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if they cry 'Havoc!'

    27. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody operates R-22 or R-44 helicopters for anything besides training. The R-22 has a weight capacity of something like 300 lbs. The B206, and EC120 are both fairly dated helicopters as well.

    28. Re:Helicopters by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, it costs a lot more to fly the helicopter as well.

    29. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is pretty clear by now, that Iran was just talking shit.

    30. Re:Helicopters by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know if it is because of corrupt assholes, but this article here seems to show quite a bit more when completely outfitted for the police.

      http://www.policeone.com/police-products/vehicles/articles/1359987-Police-helicopters-becoming-commonplace/

      The bell 407 in the pic is said to cost 1.5 mil outfitted and ready for service. I doubt they go for the luxury copter but they probably do look for the air duty equivalent of a surplus military copter with some comforts not generally involved in a military helicopter like a cushioned seat. Helicopters used to be provided relatively cheap on a surplus offering from the military. I guess after 9/11, demand for them shot past the availability of the surplus crafts and private suppliers started offering specially outfitted helicopters for law enforcement purposed.

    31. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are upset, because this has a lot of potential for misuse. Look at the license plate readers for example. Or the video cameras placed on street corners.

    32. Re:Helicopters by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      For anything that would be used by government (the ability to put out a fire, carry FLIR or hold a medical patient), you are looking at $2,000,000 minimum, plus gear and training. I'm guessing that pilots are more expensive for helicopters than drones.

    33. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because helicopters are aerodynamic instability hell, and fixed-wing UAVs aren't.

    34. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      If the cost to train and employ a drone pilot is half that of a pilot of a real helicopter that meas that they can man only twice as many drones as helicopters for the same operational budget. Doubling the number of eyes in the sky is not a huge improvement and is a far cry from "they can watch everything. That would require 50 to 100 times more drones and they do not have the budget to pay the pilots.

    35. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      These are the kind of uninformed posts that truly irk me. The "facts" they purport are blatantly false, the parallels they draw are meaningless and they information they leave out is obvious.

      People are upset by them because they are designed to be constantly in the air.

      Drones use fuel and need to land to refuel just like manned helicopters. The flight time of currently used helicopters is limited by the fuel tank not the crew.

      If they were used for the same purposes as police helicopters you would only need 1 or 2.

      One would need exactly the same number of drones a helicopters to get the same coverage.

      Knowing our local police that means they'll start using them to cite traffic violations like speeding, which most Americans don't consider a crime.

      To "cite traffic violations like speeding" requires someone on the ground. Sure a drone, like helicopters in use today, can spot for ground personnel they do not "cite" people.

      In Virginia they still haven't answered whether or not the drones will be armed. There are serious implications if they are.

      Care to cite references. I have seen articles about the Governor wanting drones but nothing about arming them. What does Virginia have to do with Washington State? Is there any mention of arming the helicopters in Seattle? This statement is an obvious Red Herring.

      But either way, constantly being watched by flying vehicles is an invasion of privacy.

      Is being watched from a vehicle an invasion of privacy? Is being watched by a pedestrian an invasion of privacy? Is being watched by a traffic camera an invasion of privacy? The point is that there is no valid expectation of privacy when out doors and off your property. Can they look over your fence and into your yard? Sure, but then so can helicopters.

      I have a reasonable expectation that if I go out for a drive, walk, to dinner etc, that the government is not spying on me constantly.

      Unless you happen to be a major criminal the Seattle police department is not going to tie up one quarter of their drone fleet watching you. There are over 620,000 people in Seattle and only 4 drones. You just are not that important.

      Crime rates are down across the country.

      So are police budgets. They are trying to use technology to reduce costs while keeping watch over the people they are sworn to protect.

      It seems an interesting dichotomy. On one hand we want the police on hand to watch so they can stop crimes and protect the citizens.On the other hand we do not want the police to watch us so that they do not invade our privacy. You can not have both. You can either have police watch and intervene or not watch and try to clean up after. Personally I would rather have them intervene.

    36. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I guess they have already declared war long ago. Here are some examples.
      Bell 206 Jet Ranger Bell OH-58 Kiowa
      M-16 rifles used by both police and military.
      Body armor developed from military flack vests.
      Grenade launchers used to launch CS canisters
      An unarmed drone is just another piece of equipment

    37. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Which has already been declared illegal in court. Any pilot caught doing this would be charged.

    38. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because technically speeding isn't a crime. it is a civil fine. if speeding was a criminal offense you would have your normal constitutional protections and would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, which is the exact opposite of the way speeding fines work currently.

    39. Re:Helicopters by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Its because they can silently flyby near your house window and record you and your wife naked in details.

      Which has already been declared illegal in court. Any pilot caught doing this would be charged.

      Lots of things cops and the DHS do every day has been "decalred illegal" yet they still occur. The TSA ignores court orders. The DoJ ignores Congressional orders and more. BATFE insists gun stores sell firearms to drug cartels despite their protests which later are used to murder both Mexicans and Americans.

      I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any government officials (besides possibly some mid-level scapegoat if there were widespread strong opposition) going to trial for using/abusing drones, no matter how "illegal" it might be.

      Laws and regulations are for the proles, not the ruling elite. Didn't you get the memo?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    40. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who is or speaks out against the police has provided them with probable cause.

    41. Re:Helicopters by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One of two things would kill drone programs. The less certain path is that they greatly underestimated the costs of using drones, however if Police State Bob wants something, money is often magically found. The more certain path is when drones get hacked in flight and creatively dealt with - deliberately crashed, taken elsewhere, or they are flown as nuisances

      That's a good start, but eventually they will embrace strong crypto, and then it will be necessary to build drone-killing drones.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In Virginia they still haven't answered whether or not the drones will be armed".

      Of course the will be armed, one day soon.

      Look at tasers. They were originally targeted as non-lethal alternatives to lethal force, i.e. the use of the gun. Now they are the first line tool of the police. The police are lazy, target-driven, racist authoritarians (with exceptions for individual offices who risk their career to buck the system). They will use any tool they can scam for their convenience.

    43. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly a great percentage of the population wants to be able to get away with something. Only to the extent that in very hard times one sometimes must break laws to survive do i have any sympathy for such nonsense. Whether it is using dope, adultery, cheating on taxes, cheating insurance companies, or cheating employers, we have a majority of the population that simply wants to get away with something.
                                      That includes employers and businesses as well. If the public had any clue as to what employers do to cheat employees or customers we would live in perpetual social chaos. For example we have employers recruiting young graduates who know full well that they will lay a new employee off in less than five years to avoid pensions and the like while telling the young prospect about the rosy and permanent dream position if they just sign here. Or how about those military contracts that let you select Hawaii as your service location and then send you straight to Vietnam.
                                      Drones can mean the free flow of factual information and lies are highly valued by many people.

    44. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've rarely seen a more well written and yet almost totally wrong rebuttal to an argument. It flies completely in the face of experience proving the contrary, much like libertarian economic ideas. You ignore the fact that experience shows that police and law enforcement do not believe there are or should be ANY limits to their authority or actions. They always seek more control because that is the nature of the work and the people who do it. The only logical thing to do is to counter that with a group/agency/whatever that believes in limits to authority AND has the power to limit what police are allowed to do. Courts these days won't. Politicians won't because the public believes those idiotic "soft on crime" campaign commercials (as if anybody who is really for common crime will run for office). Conservatives who want small government never apply that to cops, or to the military because they know the truth: the cops and military exist to serve their interests, keep them in power, and protect their property.

      Drones, helicopters, it's not the tech it's what they do with it. Take for example it is now possible to mount aerial cameras with license plate recognition ability. By itself that is not necessarily bad, but the use of that technology in patrol cars shows that the cops keep records of every car they see. Not every match against a wanted list. Not every match against a stolen vehicle list. Everyone. Date, time, place, etc. Right there the "you're not that important" argument is void because everyone can be investigated retroactively. Now expand the view by putting that stuff in the air. Maybe throw in facial recognition (if I can think of it you know they have) . Now you have an instant dossier on everyone, and an instant protest deterrent. You can already be fired in way too many states for being a liberal (since the boss rarely is), now we can have instant proof.

      That and worse is what's coming unless we get better educated cops who have self restraint, which would require firing almost all of the current ones, or unless we impose a counter force to control them. We can at least start by taking away their military toys.

    45. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Florida fixed wing aircraft are used to surveil suspects. They can be miles away and watch your car all day long as well as note who enters or leaves your property. For example in the dope game they can compile a list of everyone you visit or that visit you and then place all of them under scrutiny and round up rather large drug rings. The Florida Keys are watched by anchored, high altitude blimps. They spot so many small boats sneaking in that they can't chase most of the down. That is part of the reasoning behind long sentences. It is assumed that you have done it many, many times before being arrested so one conviction is meant to reflect that fact. It is also becoming obvious that we can't afford to arrest all dope runners or dealers or addicts. It might get to the point of on the spot executions without trials or arrests becomes the affordable way to stomp out drug use.

    46. Re:Helicopters by CheshireFerk-o · · Score: 0

      so yer a state police helicopter pilot/salesman?

    47. Re:Helicopters by khallow · · Score: 1

      Unless the implication is that you don't need quite the same quality because no lives (in the aircraft) are at risk?

      That's true. The real problem is the liability. Looking at your example above, the organization in question doesn't need to train the drone pilot to the same level as the helicopter pilot because less lives and property damage are at risk. That means, if something goes wrong, you're out the cost of the drone plus whatever it hit. With a helicopter, that's at least a pilot and a much larger footprint on the ground.

    48. Re:Helicopters by Sarten-X · · Score: 0

      That's stupid.

      Fantastic rebuttal.

      People are upset by them because they are designed to be constantly in the air.

      So we're upset by clouds too, right? And birds are abominable?

      What is so upsetting about something being in the air? Why does something being in the air all the time upset you? I propose that the constant disruption to your illusion of privacy is offensive, and frustrating because no other human has to be similarly offended.

      If they were used for the same purposes as police helicopters you would only need 1 or 2. You only need more if you intend on having them constantly deployed.

      This assumes that helicopters are currently used for their full purpose. The reality is that they're too expensive to fly as often as needed, and the police departments can't justify spending the money on another helicopter when there's more pressing needs, like bulletproof vests.

      Knowing our local police that means they'll start using them to cite traffic violations like speeding, which most Americans don't consider a crime.

      [citation needed]

      Crime is defined by law, not public opinion. Laws should be determined by what's best for the people in general, not what the mindless morons of the public at large think they want.

      In Virginia they still haven't answered whether or not the drones will be armed. There are serious implications if they are.

      Are these implications any more serious than having every traffic cop, meter-reader, and amusement park security guard armed? Those weapons are tolerated because the officer who carries it will have to have a good reason to ever shoot someone. An armed drone is no different. If it ever shoots someone, the operator has to have a very good reason.

      But either way, constantly being watched by flying vehicles is an invasion of privacy. I have a reasonable expectation that if I go out for a drive, walk, to dinner etc, that the government is not spying on me constantly.

      What's inherently wrong with the government spying on you constantly? Maybe if the government were spying on me constantly, they'd know that yes, I really did move last year, so my tax credit (with accompanying change-of-address form) is valid.

      What is the end game? To gather lots of small things together to make it seem like I did a crime?

      There is no end game. There is only progress toward a goal that is known to be unattainable. That goal is to have no crime, and all crimes that do happen are solved. Recording everything allows investigators to go back after a crime and track the motion of the people involved. If a shooting victim ate lunch with you an hour before getting shot, that makes you a possible source for information (and yes, suspicion too).

      There is no reason to be running drones constantly. Crime rates are down across the country.

      So we should fire all police, too? And since your house isn't currently on fire, we shouldn't have firefighters, either? Since the invention of the steam locomotive, travel is much faster, so we don't need to work on those silly horseless carriages.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    49. Re:Helicopters by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Or we could deploy dozens of drones constantly recording, so that when someone's caught, the police have evidence of exactly how many times they've done it before, and the sentences can reflect that accurately.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    50. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it would be nice if the public stopped abusing, thus giving rise to the need for police.

      I live in Seattle, I have for decades, a surreal dystopia is what the community is evolving into here. I do have some fear, of some civil rights being nullified, a concern of an excess regulation, a wish to avoid the economic costs, and just the aesthetic sense I would not like to live in an area with much police presence nor power. Regardless of my natural feelings, empowering law enforcement is the only alternative to confront not just annoying, unsocial, and uncivil behavior, but MURDEROUS uncivil behavior that is developing in ALL parts of Seattle.

    51. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Who cares if they do it when the surveillance and anything gained from it (fruit of the poisoned tree) can not be used in court?

    52. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point is exellent. If we had a perfected social justice and protection system in place (which in my opinion would carry much more individual and community responsability) and less police, this wouldnt be a big deal. But its being done by a corrupt police state (seatle for real lol). Most likely to sniff wifi and harras people on trivial zoning issues in a tough economy. Like find those illegal tomatoes at grandmas.

    53. Re:Helicopters by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Who cares if they do it when the surveillance and anything gained from it (fruit of the poisoned tree) can not be used in court?

      It's cute that you think these "courts" you speak of are some kind of a necessity anymore. They don't even need a warrant thanks to PATRIOT and NDAA, wtf makes you think you'll see a courtroom on your way to Rendition?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    54. Re:Helicopters by GNULinuxGuy · · Score: 1

      Police almost never stop crimes directly. They mostly just document them after the fact. If you want to have security you really need to take measures into your own hands.

      --
      Earn Cash and Prizes, and get free stuff!
    55. Re:Helicopters by jcombel · · Score: 1

      opening line of argument is incorrect: police helicopters do fly patrol, for uses as mundane as targetting highway speeding, and are profitable in that respect.

    56. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one hand we want the police on hand to watch so they can stop crimes and protect the citizens.On the other hand we do not want the police to watch us so that they do not invade our privacy.

      I might have more sympathy with this point of view if the police didn't make some things their business which really shouldn't be their business. Maybe if they didn't want to punish people for things they to their own body that have no harm on others, I wouldn't mind. But they do make such things their business, so I mind a great deal and would happily see them starved of as much budget as possible.

    57. Re:Helicopters by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Not really. The hardest part of flying isnt the driving. It's the rules and regs. And drone pilots still have to obey nearly all the same FAA rules as normal pilots. They just dont risk their personal self in the act.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    58. Re:Helicopters by lightBearer · · Score: 1

      Leash laws prevent letting them slip, though.

      --
      - No Bounce, No Play -
  8. Makes no sense by asmkm22 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can see quite a bit of value for the military use of drones. They put fewer pilots at risk, and it's probably cheaper to train a drone pilot than the a "real" pilot, although I could be wrong.

    Using drones by the state department or law enforcement, however, makes less sense. They aren't designed to displace, say, helicopter pilots, and I doubt they'll be doing missile strikes any time soon, so the only purpose they serve is yet another way around those pesky privacy laws.

    1. Re:Makes no sense by NFN_NLN · · Score: 2

      I can see quite a bit of value for the military use of drones. They put fewer pilots at risk, and it's probably cheaper to train a drone pilot than the a "real" pilot, although I could be wrong.

      ... so ... are we allowed to shine green lasers at these since there is no real pilot?

    2. Re:Makes no sense by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can see quite a bit of value for the military use of drones. They put fewer pilots at risk, and it's probably cheaper to train a drone pilot than the a "real" pilot, although I could be wrong.

      Of course, they are trading "fewer pilots at risk" with "more people on the ground at risk". A helicopter is extremely expensive to own and operate and has a pilot on board that cares a lot about keeping himself alive (thus keeping the helicopter in the air). If they have a fleet of 6 drones that are much cheaper to operate (thus are more heavily used than helicopters), there's a higher risk that one of those drones will malfunction and crash to the ground, possibly on someone's house or car. Granted a "small" drone will cause less damage than a larger helicopter, but that's not going to make the headlines much better when a drone crashes into a crowded football stadium.

      In a military operation killing a few civilians on the bad guys side is treated as a cost of war -- but what's the reaction going to be when a drone chasing a car thief crashes into a back yard birthday party?

    3. Re:Makes no sense by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is precisely why the FAA hasn't approved the drones flying over populated areas. FTFA the original FAA plan required the Seattle PD to stay away from pretty much everything. The idea seemed to be that the department needed to show that they were interested and capable of using these potentially dangerous devices.

      All well and good, but then the Seattle PD just dropped everything (according to the publicly available documents) and the program is sitting there, essentially collecting rust (it is Seattle after all) all the while asking for two new drones.

      Seems like the Seattle PD started out OK (testing program, limited objectives) but now has backed off, shut up and wants to spend more. Perhaps their taking cues from the TSA.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Makes no sense by asynchronous13 · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with privacy laws. The main uses are for aerial pictures and search and rescue. When there's an automobile crash on the interstate, a quick aerial photograph of the accident scene lets the police clear debris off the road faster and open the road sooner. Right now, they'll send out a hook-and-ladder fire truck and send a photographer to the top of the ladder to get the aerial pictures when needed. Privacy laws remain in effect, independent of the technology used.

    5. Re:Makes no sense by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > The main uses are for aerial pictures and search and rescue.

      Yes, and the secondary uses are illegal surveillance.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    6. Re:Makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can see quite a bit of value for the military use of drones. They put fewer pilots at risk, and it's probably cheaper to train a drone pilot than the a "real" pilot, although I could be wrong.

      ... so ... are we allowed to shine green lasers at these since there is no real pilot?

      I am a drone you insensitive clod.

    7. Re:Makes no sense by Froggels · · Score: 1

      .... but what's the reaction going to be when a drone chasing a car thief crashes into a back yard birthday party?

      As long as the police were following procedure then it's just collateral damage. Remember, in America "the law" must be enforced at all costs.

    8. Re:Makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ranchers are already using drones in the US to look for rustlers or breaks in fences. Drones could also keep an eye on construction machinery after hours. We might even see homes that average over 50 visits every afternoon by drug buyers. Drones can prevent a lot of crime.

  9. Drones by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, police departments have started stocking up on all kinds of military and paramilitary gear ever since the federal government started giving away excess or "out of warranty" military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies. I mean, Texas recently took delivery of a tank. Cost? Gas. And there's pics on the internet of someone being pulled over for speeding by a giant tank.

    On one hand, that's recycling and reusing, which is a sound financial principle that reduces operating costs. Given our massive debt load, this kind of thinking should be encouraged. On the other hand, there are disturbing civil rights implications when the police start amassing large quantities of military gear. It's like the old saying "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." We're seeing increased use of SWAT teams, no-knock search warrants, and violence by our police against the civilian population that simply wasn't present 10 or 15 years ago. I can't help but wonder if it's not just a little because they're being handed military gear by the truckload -- there's no incentive to look for less violent solutions, and that bullets cost less than tazer cartridges.

    It's not that civilian law enforcement has access to, or owns, drones, or even that the military is practically giving them away that concerns me... but that there's not much incentive for less-than-lethal weapondry when letal weapons cost less (if anything). It has always cost more to protect something than destroy it. But the police are supposed to be tasked with preserving life -- taking it is a last resort. But when the only tools they're given are all made with the idea of being used against our enemies instead of our peers, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the user's thinking adapts to the tool... not the other way around.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Drones by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      We're seeing increased use of SWAT teams, no-knock search warrants, and violence by our police against the civilian population that simply wasn't present 10 or 15 years ago.

      I assure you, it was occurring well over 15 years ago. Remember Waco was almost 20 years ago now. The difference between now and then is it's not just the groups labeled right or left wing nuts that have noticed. It has gotten far worse over time, even small police departments are 'militarized' these days. At least at this time we can still freely complain about it on the internet. Back in the early '90s you didn't hear about it so much because they news only reported what the police said happened and the people the knew the truth were talking about it at a diner over coffee.

    2. Re:Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully there are a few cases where this tendency has at least partially backfired. Our community received an M113 type APC years ago through one such program. They got it basically free or charge, the only thing they needed to do was have a shop that specialized in them do a refurb on it and replace its standard tracks with rubber coated ones to protect roads. For years it (thankfully) was only really used in parades, at one it broke down. It was repaired and returned to its shed, a few months later they pulled it out for something and it broke down again. By then the economic downturn had entered its full swing and with budgets tightening it was shoved back into its shed to await a less volatile climate in which to ask for more funds to fix it. As budgets tightened more and more it became a public debacle along with our ERT (SWAT), costing millions of dollars and being used to knock over 50 year old couples growing weed and paraded out during holidays. The ERT was shut down (but their gear was stored for future use) and the tank will likely be sold or given back to the army. A costly lesson but hopefully one which will not soon be forgotten.

    3. Re:Drones by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And there's pics on the internet of someone being pulled over for speeding by a giant tank.

      lol that's hilarious. I would speed just so I could get pulled over. It can't be good for the roads, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Drones by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      and violence by our police against the civilian population that simply wasn't present 10 or 15 years ago.

      There was probably even more of it, before YouTube and cell phones with video capabilities existed. Now they usually think twice about what they do in public.
      In any case, it's a small percentage of cops that are involved, but they give all cops a bad name.

    5. Re:Drones by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, police departments have started stocking up on all kinds of military and paramilitary gear ever since the federal government started giving away excess or "out of warranty" military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies

      Really that's been going on for eternity. Our local PD in Lakeport, CA has a bunch of old military trucks. The relationship has simply been formalized so they can do it with less paperwork.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a citizen of Bellmead at the time, where it actually occurred (Bellmead is essentially a suburb of sorts at this point, slight more separated back then) ... I would like to point out that the local police did not cause the problem. It was the FBI.

      The local sherif flat out TOLD the FBI NOT to go running up to the compound with guns blazing unless they expected to have their ass handed to them. The FBI ignored the sherif and did one of those 'we know more about what we're doing than you do!' moments you see so often on TV shows. Only this time it was real and they had their ass promptly handed too them. They deserve no sympathy.

      Had the FBI not been involved its highly likely that most everyone would have walked away alive, even if it meant the Sherif walked away and left them alone long enough to catch them OUTSIDE THE FORTIFIED COMPOUND LOADED WITH WEAPONS. They still have to eat you know? As the Sherif's department told them, stand down. Don't make your presence so obvious and wait, they'll come out in the open and we'll deal with it then.

      Everyone in Texas knows the FBI caused what you saw on TV.

      Texans DO think differently and act, like it or not. If you generally give them no respect you won't like the response regardless of who they are and what they've done. Its just the way it is. Its not even really that bad like most people like to make it out to be ... as long as you don't openly disrespect them you generally don't get a gun in your face, but if you point a gun at most Texans you probably should expect to get shot at.

      Its hard to call them wrong for doing so. I admit to being biased having been raised there ... I watched from my second story bedroom window what you saw on TV. On the other hand you will find that in general Texans are some of the most courteous people you'll meet. When you live in a non-urban area of Texas it is vital that you help out people in need as there is a really good chance of death occurring if you just leave someone stranded on the side of the road. Its not Nevada, but its pretty damn close to the same in large portions of the state, so people there naturally have learned to help each other out and go out of their way for each other, generally more than I've ever seen in a city outside of the area. On that same note, its easy to take advantage of those people in distress so there is a natural tendency to respond harshly when treated harshly.

      As for the GP post:

      And there's pics on the internet of someone being pulled over for speeding by a giant tank.

      You should Google 'photoshop' before you talk out your ass. Read your statement. How can you have a picture of a car pulled over by a speeding tank? Did the tank just breeze by the pulled over car and throw the ticket out on the way by?

      Don't be so fucking retarded. No such thing ever happened.

      --BitZtream

    7. Re:Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, police departments have started stocking up on all kinds of military and paramilitary gear ever since the federal government started giving away excess or "out of warranty" military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies. I mean, Texas recently took delivery of a tank. Cost? Gas. And there's pics on the internet of someone being pulled over for speeding by a giant tank.

      Huh? If he were speeding, surely he should be able to outrun a tank?

      A tank might be useful for police - it will surely win any firefight, being invulnerable to normal guns. But catching speeders is the last thing I would think of. . .

  10. Knowing Mayor McGinn... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    He probably wants the drones to spy on the contractors digging the new highway 99 tunnel. He's hoping to catch one misstep so - BAM! - he can shut them down!

    Or maybe SPD found out there are more woodcarvers than they thought, so they want the ability to monitor them all in case another one goes rogue.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Knowing Mayor McGinn... by PPH · · Score: 1

      That's why the residents of Seattle love bus and traffic tunnels: Follow me now, biatch!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Knowing Mayor McGinn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike a helicopter, a drone might actually fit in a tunnel.

      But like a helicopter, they won't bother with that. Just watch the openings till you come out . . .

    3. Re:Knowing Mayor McGinn... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Just watch the openings till you come out . . .

      Long wait. Seattle hobos live down there.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  11. City or Town Drones by Dantoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Local records office is full of them. Went there to submit house plans and though I had a go, I found I lacked the skills to even manipulate one to the counter. They seemed to be aimless and uncontrollable which is probably why the local authority had them stored in the one building. I am fairly sure that 150k would be a bargain for a new one. A lot of these were older models and possibly cost as much as that to maintain annually. Fully autonomous advanced models for their day though, so I left fervently hoping that the powers would let them all loose soon during a value-for-money drive.

  12. Maybe not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the price of one of these drones, you get maybe 2 or 3 cops for one year. Which is more efficient for preventing and/or solving crimes in the public space?

    1. Re:Maybe not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would the answer be "Neither!" ?

  13. No Voters Necessary...or Cops, Criminals either by Bob_Who · · Score: 2

    Let's just outsource citizens while we're at it. Who cares about actual people when the objective of the paramilitary complex is to make a sale. Capitalism mixed with armed civil servitude in a budget crisis, what a great idea!

    1. Re:No Voters Necessary...or Cops, Criminals either by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Let's just outsource citizens while we're at it.

      Someone must have watched Surrogates lately.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  14. Save money, buy later by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

    Why buy them before you're going to use them?

    This technology is advancing so rapidly that anything you buy *today* will cost half the price in a couple of month's time and be twice as capable.

    There's a Moore's law involved here so it seems stupid to tie up capital in something that will be unused and depreciating at such a rapid rate.

    Think of all the donuts and coffee they could buy for that money!

  15. The Draganflyer X6 Is A Toy Helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $150,000?!?!? P.T. Barnum put it best. Given the actual situation here, which is that the smart snake oil salesman at the draganflyer.com toy store have managed to come up with a way to fleece cities for crappy little radio controlled helis with cameras on them, I'm actually all for this. Maybe I can sell the SPD a reprap machine for $25,000 as a way to fabricate replacement parts for their Draganflyer X6 when they hit a twig and break some parts off it.

  16. Ok here's what we do... by isomer1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We, as concerned budget conscious citizens, point out that these drones can do the work of 10 ordinary beat officers (10,15 whatever the number is irrelevant). This, we continue, allows the county/city/state to reduce the number of officers on payroll. Then we sit back and watch the police union take care of problem for us.

  17. Da Seattle Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ya wanna know about the Seattle Police Department ask the black and hispanic community. The black community has for years fought successfully against having a "local" precinct placed in the middle of their neighborhood. Racist pigs. Check Youtube also. The Police have starring roles there.

  18. Black Helicopters! Tinfoil! GUBBERMINT SPIEZ! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, if you are in Seattle, you only have to worry about the police if you are a minority armed with a sword or knife. In that event, expect to get murdered by cops with guns. I expect the UAVs are probably to locate minorities armed with knives more efficiently.

    But on the plus side, if you shoot at a police helicopter spying on you sans warrant with a .22 rifle, you will probably get charged with attempted murder. If you shoot at a UAV, you will get charged with destruction of private property. Yay?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Black Helicopters! Tinfoil! GUBBERMINT SPIEZ! by ukemike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, if you are in Seattle, you only have to worry about the police if you are a minority armed with a sword or knife. In that event, expect to get murdered by cops with guns. I expect the UAVs are probably to locate minorities armed with knives more efficiently.

      Or if you espouse left wing political ideas, or own anarchist literature or participate in protests against authority. http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/

      --
      -- QED
    2. Re:Black Helicopters! Tinfoil! GUBBERMINT SPIEZ! by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Well, if you are in Seattle, you only have to worry about the police if you are a minority armed with a sword or knife. In that event, expect to get murdered by cops with guns. I expect the UAVs are probably to locate minorities armed with knives more efficiently.

      But on the plus side, if you shoot at a police helicopter spying on you sans warrant with a .22 rifle, you will probably get charged with attempted murder. If you shoot at a UAV, you will get charged with destruction of private property. Yay?

      Shooting at a UAV sounds like terrorist activity, which is a good thing as trials and due process cost a fortune.

      I would vote for these only if they make the concession that any time a private citizen sees one in the air over their land they are allowed to shoot at it with an air rifle, and that if they successfully take it down over their own property it becomes theirs.

      Also, in the interests of security, any and all attempts to take one down via electronic means are allowed and encouraged, with the proviso that a successful takedown requires that the exploit be published to give the police a chance to fix the bug.

    3. Re:Black Helicopters! Tinfoil! GUBBERMINT SPIEZ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you shoot a police dog, the punishment is several times more severe than if you shot some stray mutt. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts (an even bet nowadays) that shooting down a drone would be considered a felony, possibly a terrorist act.

    4. Re:Black Helicopters! Tinfoil! GUBBERMINT SPIEZ! by lightBearer · · Score: 1

      I endorse this approach. I like community bug-hunting.

      --
      - No Bounce, No Play -
  19. No Dronios in San Antonio by zenlessyank · · Score: 0

    We have like 3 (maybe more for u anal factoid types) Air Force Bases and several airports, and C-5 Galaxies flying overhead all day and all night. Who needs a drone?

    1. Re:No Dronios in San Antonio by PPH · · Score: 1

      We (in Seattle) have one airport within city limits (Boeing Field), several commercial float plane operations on local lakes plus the approach patterns for SeaTac airport and Renton Municipal overhead.

      I think we can do without the airspace competition from unpiloted junk as well.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  20. And Yet Mysteriously.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... property taxes alone on an American are higher than the annual living wage in many countries. How this can be defies explanation!

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:And Yet Mysteriously.... by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      property taxes alone on an American are higher than the annual living wage in many countries. How this can be defies explanation!

      No it doesn't. The standard of living is higher here. Don't be an idiot.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:And Yet Mysteriously.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably defies explanation to you.
      Others can be made to realize that north americans, europeans, and in fact, most of the civilized world don't live in mud huts in the middle of a desert. Things like running water and electricity help too.
      Paved roads cost a little extra. And having your garbage hauled away instead of piled in your backyard, is just good manners.
      You fucking moron.

    3. Re:And Yet Mysteriously.... by shiftless · · Score: 0

      The standard of living is higher here.

      You sure about that?

    4. Re:And Yet Mysteriously.... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      It's insane. How come a run of the mill dinner at a restaurant would cost me near enough 20 euro, while in Somalia that'd be dinner for a warlord and the most trusted members of his personal army. Lets see done elitist book learnin' boffin explain that!

      Palin/Trump in 2019!

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    5. Re:And Yet Mysteriously.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet we donate more to countries in need than pretty much any other nation on the planet ...

      Perhaps you should do some research before making ignorant blanket statements.

      If you don't like it you are more than welcome to go live in said countries ... but you won't will you? You'll stick around a nice first world country living nicely and talking about how bad we are for doing so.

      Fucking hypocrites.

      --BitZtream

  21. I know Seattle is eager to spend its new pot money by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    .... after cannabis is legalized in November, but don't spend this money just because you can

  22. snake oil department by nazsco · · Score: 1

    Not even a snake oil salesman... a snake oil department!

    http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x6/

    Grant Assistance

    The Department of Homeland Security makes grants available to states, local and tribal jurisdictions, and other regional authorities to assist in planning, equipment purchase, training, and exercise needs. Draganfly Innovations will provide grant writing support, consultation, and assistance to qualified agencies.
    Contact Kevin, our grant assistance specialist,
      Call 1-800-979-9794 or 306-955-9907 (ext. 6111)

  23. My city uses drones by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    They sit on the city council.

  24. These may not last long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until the kids of any age discover how to crash their $100 microdrone Xmas gifts into a Seattle PD drone and bring it down. I am guessing that it will be very difficult for SPD to find them, too.

  25. Seattle PD has been creepy since at least 2000 by WarSpiteX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have only flown through Seattle and never really spent more than about 6 hours in the city proper (outside the airport), yet I was creeped out by their police as early as 2000 - long before the stories of abuse came out. Here's why:

    I'm coming off my flight in Seattle for the first time and waiting for another, when all of a sudden, interrupting the normal announcements, the speakers across the airport are blaring out "DO NOT WORRY, CITIZENS! THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE HERE TO ASSIST YOU." This was over a year before 9/11 so it never occurred to me that some sort of terrorist attack had happened, and as far as I knew, the police in Seattle had done nothing notable to rile up the citizenry. Yet the fact that they felt the need to reassure me every 10 minutes (for 3 hours...) that they're here to help me was the weirdest thing ever.

    That is all.

    --


    I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
    1. Re:Seattle PD has been creepy since at least 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you're in serious shit if a government official starts with "Do not worry."

    2. Re:Seattle PD has been creepy since at least 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a different police department. The Port of Seattle Police Department is it's own brand of stupid. I swear half of their budget is spent on telling me how great a job they do.

      The Seattle Police, however, are corrupt idiotic goons. Example story:

      I once drove a friend to a Seattle hospital. We happened to get there after a gang shooting victim showed up, so the local cops were on high alert. As I was going through the metal detector to get into the waiting area, the cop freaked out because my car key doesn't look like a key (it's a fob thing). He refused to let me in with it, afraid the trunk open button was really a bomb, I guess. I attempted to calmly point out it was just a key, and I'd relinquish it to his custody while I was waiting for my friend, and he said "I don't give a shit what it is. Find somewhere else to be. If I see you here again, I'll find some reason to arrest you."

  26. Lasers will blind the drone video cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you should not do this, I was just mentioning this as an interesting
    scientific fact.

  27. Qui bono? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And then make sure the scumbag spends a few years behind bars for accepting advantage.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  28. ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as one living within 30min of seattle, this article scares the shit out of me.

  29. Redundant? More like informative by shiftless · · Score: 0

    Come on mods

  30. Shoot. Them. Down. by mrscott · · Score: 1

    I'm not generally antigovernment, but where drones (and the TSA) are concerned, I'm appalled that people are simply sitting back and allowing constant government aerial surveillance to simply go unchecked. Frankly, I hope that people start shooting them down. They have no place outside a war zone. Scott

  31. EMP grenades by sepiroth · · Score: 1

    Finally I can put all the FPS training to use.

    1. Re:EMP grenades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thermonuclear hand grenades. For the man with a strong throwing arm.

  32. Once you trained them, they stay trained. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they don't have to pay to train them when they've already been trained.

    Therefore you can get UAV pilot numbers up twice as fast for the same training budget.

    Operational budget is the cost of continuing to fly the stuff. Not train people.

  33. Bingo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they have already declared war long ago.

  34. Just Asking by HarryatRock · · Score: 1

    As a proud UK subject (we are NOT citizens), I don't understand the lack of "social belonging" that is shown by so many colonists posters. Is it because by starting with an illegal act and armed uprising the conspiracy of "founding fathers" set a precedent which is still followed by this generation, or is it because a mongrel mix of immigrants from minority cults and diverse cultures has failed to form a cohesive "nation".
    The police force should be seen as an integral part of society, and respected as defending the values of it. You claim to be democratic republic, so either you have the laws and constabulary that a majority wants, or you have failed to use your votes to that end.
    If you admit that the majority of your society is happy with the current policing policy, but are personally against it, then you should either accept the will of the majority as the cost of the (other) benefits of citizenship (while using your freedom to try and persuade your fellow voters to change that policy), or give up that citizenship and emigrate. If your claim is that the majority of the electorate do not agree with the current policy, then I do not understand how that could come about unless your republic is not democratic.
    As a bystander, I acknowledge that I have no right to criticize, but I would like to understand.

    --
    nec sorte nec fato
  35. They want more drones then ask the.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ...taxpayers if they are interested in funding more technology for the few to spy on the taxpayers.

  36. Hey politicians! by JobyOne · · Score: 1

    Do you want to do whatever the fuck you want, with no regard whatsoever for the wishes of your constituency? Do you want to then get reelected over and over again because only 200 old-ass white people show up at the election to vote straight down the party line?

    Sound like paradise? Can't possibly be real?

    But wait! It is real! It's local government! Getting in is easy, too! Just wait for an incumbent to die or retire, then take their place in whatever party they came from. Unless you get redistricted, you're now set for life. Congratulations!

    --
    Porquoi?
  37. The elites using our money to keep us in check.. by m_number4 · · Score: 1

    This is just another example of the elites (politicians and certain wealthy individuals) using our tax dollars to ensure we don't take back our country. This is in the same category as the stop and frisk law in New York. Both designed to keep us a little agitated, nervous and good little sheep. And this is happening right under our noses with most folks consenting to these types of actions by these morally corrupt elites.

  38. As a Seattle-ite I can't wait to shoot one. by jetcityorange · · Score: 2

    Drones? Are you fucking kidding me! Didn't the SPD learn anything from the WTO Battle in Seattle or #OccupySeattle? Obviously not. That's OK. I have a 270 degree view from my rooftop here in N Admiral. I can see all of downtown. One question: How long before folks start aiming for them... Don't worry Diaz; I don't own a gun.

  39. Prehistoric drone by Bad+Science · · Score: 1

    My town is far too small to have a drone, but when I lived in downstate Illinois, a town called Quincy had a remote controlled helicopter with FLIR on it back in the early 2000's.They only used it twice that I'm aware of, and that was to find small children who got lost in cornfields.