Seattle Police Want More Drones, Even While Two Sit Unused

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.

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.

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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Helicopters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 17:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Only if they cry 'Havoc!'
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.
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
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.
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.

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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!

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!

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!

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

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)

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".'

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.

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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Seattle Police Want More Drones, Even While Two Sit Unused

32 of 144 comments (clear)