Seattle Police Want More Drones, Even While Two Sit Unused

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seattle Police Want More Drones, Even While Two Sit Unused

Posted by timothy on Friday October 12, 2012 @10:43AM from the how-to-stop-those-punks-on-capitol-hill dept.

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?

89 of 144 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fans of U.S. policy abroad... by rmdingler · 2012-10-12 10:45 · 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
No...... by abhi2012 · 2012-10-12 10:47 · Score: 1

.......we have superman to look over the streets!
1. Re:No...... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  In Seattle we have Phoenix Jones. I don't see why we need any drones.
Does your city or town use drones? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 10:54 · 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.
sounds legit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 10:58 · 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 girlintraining · 2012-10-12 11:09 · 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
I'm gonna tell Seattle Police by Spy+Handler · 2012-10-12 11:01 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:36 · 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 Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-10-13 14:45 · 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...
Helicopters by Dan+East · 2012-10-12 11:02 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:06 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:30 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:41 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:44 · 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 · 2012-10-12 12:12 · 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 · 2012-10-12 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  *Ability to PREDICT the future...my fingers must already have that technology.
7. Re:Helicopters by misexistentialist · 2012-10-12 12:14 · 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 · 2012-10-12 12:16 · 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 · 2012-10-12 12:21 · 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 · 2012-10-12 12:33 · 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 · 2012-10-12 13:14 · 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 · 2012-10-12 13:33 · 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.
13. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 13:36 · 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.
14. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 14:20 · 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.
15. Re:Helicopters by gallondr00nk · 2012-10-12 14:36 · 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.
16. Re:Helicopters by westlake · 2012-10-12 15:18 · 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.
17. Re:Helicopters by jameshofo · 2012-10-12 16:36 · 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.
18. Re:Helicopters by binarylarry · 2012-10-12 16:49 · 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!
19. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  And they aren't govt drones?
20. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 17:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Only if they cry 'Havoc!'
21. Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 17:41 · 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.
22. Re:Helicopters by sjames · 2012-10-12 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, it costs a lot more to fly the helicopter as well.
23. Re:Helicopters by sumdumass · 2012-10-12 17:53 · 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.
24. Re:Helicopters by AK+Marc · 2012-10-12 18:35 · 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.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
25. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · 2012-10-12 20:41 · 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.
26. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · 2012-10-12 21:25 · 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.
27. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · 2012-10-12 21:37 · 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
28. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · 2012-10-12 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Which has already been declared illegal in court. Any pilot caught doing this would be charged.
29. Re:Helicopters by BlueStrat · 2012-10-12 22:34 · 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.
30. Re:Helicopters by drinkypoo · 2012-10-12 23:33 · 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.'"
31. Re:Helicopters by khallow · 2012-10-13 01:46 · 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.
32. Re:Helicopters by Sarten-X · 2012-10-13 06:38 · 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.
33. Re:Helicopters by jklovanc · 2012-10-13 08:59 · 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?
34. Re:Helicopters by BlueStrat · 2012-10-13 12:48 · 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.
35. Re:Helicopters by GNULinuxGuy · 2012-10-13 13:14 · 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!
36. Re:Helicopters by jcombel · 2012-10-14 08:25 · 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.
37. Re:Helicopters by dywolf · 2012-10-15 07:12 · 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.
38. Re:Helicopters by lightBearer · 2012-10-16 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Leash laws prevent letting them slip, though.
  
  --
  - No Bounce, No Play -
Makes no sense by asmkm22 · 2012-10-12 11:03 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:10 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:25 · 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 · 2012-10-12 11:35 · 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 Mr.+Freeman · 2012-10-12 13:51 · 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.
5. Re:Makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 14:16 · 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.
6. Re:Makes no sense by Froggels · 2012-10-12 22:48 · 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.
Drones by girlintraining · 2012-10-12 11:04 · 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 · 2012-10-12 15:47 · 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 phantomfive · 2012-10-12 17:25 · 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."
3. Re:Drones by ByteSlicer · 2012-10-12 22:29 · 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.
4. Re:Drones by drinkypoo · 2012-10-12 23:35 · 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.'"
Knowing Mayor McGinn... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-10-12 11:08 · 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 · 2012-10-12 14:35 · 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 PPH · 2012-10-13 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Just watch the openings till you come out . . .
  Long wait. Seattle hobos live down there.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
City or Town Drones by Dantoo · 2012-10-12 11:17 · 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.
No Voters Necessary...or Cops, Criminals either by Bob_Who · 2012-10-12 11:34 · 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 · 2012-10-12 13:08 · 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
Save money, buy later by NewtonsLaw · 2012-10-12 11:41 · 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!
Ok here's what we do... by isomer1 · 2012-10-12 11:47 · 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.
Black Helicopters! Tinfoil! GUBBERMINT SPIEZ! by TiggertheMad · 2012-10-12 12:20 · 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 · 2012-10-12 14:42 · 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 · 2012-10-12 18:45 · 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 lightBearer · 2012-10-16 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  I endorse this approach. I like community bug-hunting.
  
  --
  - No Bounce, No Play -
And Yet Mysteriously.... by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-10-12 12:54 · 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 · 2012-10-12 13:57 · 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 MysteriousPreacher · 2012-10-12 22:03 · 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
I know Seattle is eager to spend its new pot money by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-10-12 13:20 · Score: 1

.... after cannabis is legalized in November, but don't spend this money just because you can
snake oil department by nazsco · 2012-10-12 14:01 · 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)
My city uses drones by Freddybear · 2012-10-12 14:03 · Score: 1

They sit on the city council.
Re:No Dronios in San Antonio by PPH · 2012-10-12 14:31 · 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.
Seattle PD has been creepy since at least 2000 by WarSpiteX · 2012-10-12 15:13 · 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.
Qui bono? by gweihir · 2012-10-12 16:31 · 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.
Shoot. Them. Down. by mrscott · 2012-10-12 18:23 · 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
EMP grenades by sepiroth · 2012-10-12 22:15 · Score: 1

Finally I can put all the FPS training to use.
Just Asking by HarryatRock · 2012-10-13 00:58 · 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
They want more drones then ask the.... by 3seas · 2012-10-13 01:07 · Score: 1

...taxpayers if they are interested in funding more technology for the few to spy on the taxpayers.
Hey politicians! by JobyOne · 2012-10-13 01:55 · 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?
The elites using our money to keep us in check.. by m_number4 · 2012-10-13 03:03 · 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.
As a Seattle-ite I can't wait to shoot one. by jetcityorange · 2012-10-13 05:43 · 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.
Prehistoric drone by Bad+Science · 2012-10-14 02:36 · 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.