Slashdot Mirror


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."

21 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Oh A-Town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doesn't really surprise me in this particular city. They'll probably use it for aerial views of the Cowboys losing. :(

  2. I actually think this is a good thing... by Covalent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    1. Re:I actually think this is a good thing... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:I actually think this is a good thing... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  3. Turkey Shoot by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    Given the operational parameters I predict a short life span for these.

  4. Please fly over my house by Anon-Admin · · Score: 2

    Please, please fly one of them over my house.

    That way they can have an mid air collision with the Estes model rocket I will happen to be launching at the time. My special one where I replace the parachute cord with steal cable to make sure it does not break. :P

    1. Re:Please fly over my house by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      If one of these things is flying over YOUR PROPERTY are you allowed to blast it out of the sky?

      If the police are flying over your property in a police helicopter are you allowed to blast it out of the sky?

  5. What's The Difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    How are these "new" rules/permissions any different than what have already existed for hobby RC flight?

    Under 400 feet. Check.
    In sight of operator. Check.
    Daytime only. Check.(?)

    Being in contact with the control tower is a new requirement that has not been present for hobbyists in the past, that I am aware of.

    So, what's new/different about the po po vs prior rules?

    1. Re:What's The Difference? by Svartalf · · Score: 2

      Ah, but they won't use a Warrant. Already know of a county (Nearby Tarrant...) illegally using manned surveillance planes to "spot animal cruelty" from the air.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  6. Dammit Slashdot Editors!!!! by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 3, Informative

    R/C aircraft != UAV.

    See the 2nd link in the summary. The thing even has a RADIO!!!!!

    How many times does it have to be pointed out?????

    1. Re:Dammit Slashdot Editors!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      UAV

      Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

      R/C aircraft - they're unmanned, aerial and a vehicle.

      Are you going to drone on and on about the differences?

    2. Re:Dammit Slashdot Editors!!!! by serialband · · Score: 2

      The stock version's only got 5-9 minutes of run time. http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t645325p1/

  7. Military Drone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is an RC helicopter.

    The heli referenced in TFA is equivalent to the Align T-Rex 700

    Hyperbole much?

  8. Re:Traffic enforcement by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    Yet.

    --
    No sig today...
  9. Sorry could you repeat that? by ctrlshift · · Score: 2

    Excuse me Mr. Government Guy, Mr. Reporter? I think I missed the part where you assured us that these drones wouldn't be armed. Or in some way acknowledged everyone's tacit reservations about using drones in civilian areas. *checks TFA again* yep, definitely missed that. If you could just append here.......and.....here....

  10. They won't hit the police budgets by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because the police are the modern rendition of the standing army our founding fathers feared would oppress us. They'll cut the military in a heart beat because it's not useful to them; the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits them from using it in any "interesting" capacity on us. Amending the PCA would also cause a furor among the public and the military. All of that sort of beside the point because many cops today have the same weapons, training and equipment as infantrymen.

    Ironically, law enforcement, unlike military service, is precisely the sort of government function that needs to be heavily privatized. It used to be mostly private anyway. When your county hired a sheriff, they were literally just an armed citizen who carried a gun and badge that let the world know "I do full time, what any citizen can do when faced with a crime." Like a private citizen doing risky work, they had to be bonded and insured. Broke in the wrong house and did $10k of damage? Didn't come out of the treasury; it came out of your privately funded insurance and/or bond money.

    Our system is broken today because we moved away from the principle of least privilege. That used to be the operating assumption of law enforcement (if I don't know the law, I don't enforce it because getting it wrong means I'm a criminal). We went from a law enforcement system where each officer was a mostly unprivileged user to being damn near like root.

    1. Re:They won't hit the police budgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:They won't hit the police budgets by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      Additionally, to you rpoint, isn't TSA semi-private (gov't instructed, privately run?)

      Yep. They are so much better than the fully public institutions.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:They won't hit the police budgets by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      You make a lot of interesting points, but you have to admit that any private law enforcement that was created today would be created in such a way that it would be worse than any existed public law enforcement.

      And You example of insurance/bonded is wrong IMHO.
      "Didn't come out of the treasury; it came out of your privately funded insurance and/or bond money." Except that it did come out of the treasury, because his pay has to cover his insurance costs, and those costs included operation expenses, money to promote their services in the form of ads and the like, and profit for CEOs.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  11. The pinkertons are a bad example by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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).

  12. Re:Double-standard by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

    Not to mention that if I have a RC helicopter with a Canon Handycam bolted to it that I use to do aerial photography or surveying or something else not related to law enforcement, I am of course allowed to use it and passing a law saying I can't is a violation of my civil rights and personal freedom.

    If the Texas legislature has its way you WON'T be able to do what you are describing. There is a currently proposed bill to make hobby flying with a camera a crime. For authoritarians, letting the police do it == good, letting the public do it == bad.

    --

    Enigma