FAA Grants Arlington Texas Police Department Permission To Fly UAVs

cylonlover writes with news that another police department has received authorization to start using drones for tasks like "...photographing crime scenes and searching for missing people." From the article: "The police department in Arlington can now use new tools in support of public safety over the Texas urban community — two small helicopter Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The FAA has granted permission for the Arlington police to fly these unmanned aircraft under certain circumstances: they must fly under 400 feet, only in the daytime, be in sight of the operator and a safety observer, and be in contact with the control tower at the nearby Dallas-Fort Worth airport — one of the busiest in the country." They're using a Leptron Avenger, which "has been designed with military grade features" but don't worry, "police are quick to emphasize that the 4- to 5-foot-long aircraft aren’t the same as military drones."

Comments

I actually think this is a good thing...

[Covalent]

Originally there was some opposition to police car dashboard cameras. The thinking was that they would result in an invasion of privacy for average citizens. This has actually happened to a small extent, but I think the primary result has been an increased transparency of the police department. Procedures are better followed and cops who violate rules are more easily punished.

So for all of the doom and gloom about a police state and the lack of privacy this technology will bring, I tend to think the opposite will happen - Police departments that use these UAVs for inappropriate purposes will be caught and publicly denounced. In the meantime, they might actually find missing people or spot criminals, which is definitely a public good.

Re:I actually think this is a good thing...

[gstoddart]

Procedures are better followed and cops who violate rules are more easily punished.

That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Cops still act like they can confiscate cameras and make you delete images, they still beat people for no good reason, and they do still do all of the shit they always did.

Now they've learned to do it out of frame of the dashboard camera.

In the meantime, they might actually find missing people or spot criminals, which is definitely a public good.

Oh, won't someone think of the children? As long as someone is keeping the children safe, everything must be good, right?

Sorry, but while it's possible to find one or more cases where this is of benefit, there are far more cases where it will be used to our detriment. Until they can make damned sure they won't abuse it, making excuses for a few cases where it will be helpful is just playing into their hands.

Arbitrary search and seizure anywhere within 200 miles of a border might catch some bad people, but mostly it's just encroaching on rights and sucks.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

Re:I actually think this is a good thing...

[interkin3tic]

Bit of a strawman there. GP wasn't claiming dashboard cams were a magical solution to 100% all police misconduct problems. They have though ensnared some cops behaving poorly, and have not created a police state by themselves. Were the dashboard cams not there, there would be a few more victims of cops being cops, a few more bad cops on the streets, and would still have as much of a police state as we have now. That was GP's point.

I disagree with GP that drones are going to backfire much on cops though, at least without causing a tragedy. Even if a drone gets sucked into an engine and people die as a result, I'm sure the cops will get to keep their overpriced toys and we'll keep paying for it.

Re:Traffic enforcement

[Joce640k]

"police are quick to emphasize that the 4- to 5-foot-long aircraft aren’t the same as military drones."

Yet.

Re:They won't hit the police budgets

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and privatized law enforcement worked out great. Remember the pinkertons? There's a word for privatizing law enforcement, that's fascism.

The pinkertons are a bad example

[MikeRT]

The pinkertons got away with what they did to the unions because many local governments were bought and paid for by monied interests. This is really not any worse than today where cops routinely get away with stuff that is actually worse than what the pinkertons were permitted to do. A pinkerton who broke into the wrong house and shot up a family could be lawfully shot dead by the head of household. Today, you do that to a cop with a warrant based on a false statement and you're going to get it so far up the ass from the local DA that you'd think Vlad Dracula made an appearance in town. Not only is the law not even theoretically on your side today, but the government circles its wagons to protect its people and interests in a way that makes justice night impossible.

There's a word for privatizing law enforcement, that's fascism.

There's a word for people who think Fascism is a catch-all dirty word: morons. No Fascist state in history has ever moved toward privatized law enforcement where the government police and general public have the same arrest powers and liability for "getting it wrong" (enforcing non-existent laws, arresting when no formal arrest power is recognized under law, using excessive force, raiding the wrong house, etc.). Privatizing and leveling the playing field is actually a bulwark against Fascism. When a concealed carry permit holder can arrest a cop "going Rodney King" on someone and drag his sorry ass to the sheriff, that's not Fascism. That's what liberty and equality before the law looks like.

(And when several private citizens can get into a shoot out with said cop's colleagues who attempt to stop that lawful arrest, shoot most of the responding officers dead and be exonerated before the court, that's even more of an example of liberty and equality before the law).