Slashdot Mirror
Eyes Over Compton: How Police Spied On a Whole City
Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) writes with some concerning news from the Atlantic. From the article: "In a secret test of mass surveillance technology, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department sent a civilian aircraft over Compton, California, capturing high-resolution video of everything that happened inside that 10-square-mile municipality. Compton residents weren't told about the spying, which happened in 2012. 'We literally watched all of Compton during the times that we were flying, so we could zoom in anywhere within the city of Compton and follow cars and see people,' Ross McNutt of Persistence Surveillance Systems told the Center for Investigative Reporting, which unearthed and did the first reporting on this important story. The technology he's trying to sell to police departments all over America can stay aloft for up to six hours. Like Google Earth, it enables police to zoom in on certain areas. And like TiVo, it permits them to rewind, so that they can look back and see what happened anywhere they weren't watching in real time."
And this is our cue to get the HELL out of this evil, communist nation and move to Europe!
Queue the "you should not expect any privacy outside your home" comments.
I can see how this might work against somebody stealing a car as it is something that can be relatively easy to track. But tracking a person as they go into the subway is difficult or if somebody is wearing a hoodie. It still wouldn't touch the big players in organized or white collar crime.
Hopefully, everyone involved with the Sheriff's department will be punished as hard as legally possible and possibly harder; but that seems unlikely to change the fact that 'power we could use' turns into 'power we just did use' with unpleasant regularity, and it's only reasonable to suspect that the cost of this sort of sensors-and-analysis package is only going to continue plummeting.
I'm sure that the insufferable 'if, hypothetically speaking, this level of surveillance would be legal if carried out by a magical force of zero-cost police officers with perfect memories and no need for sleep, it must be legal if carried out by any means whatsoever!' brigade will be by shortly; but their argument is ahistorical nonsense that ignores the real issue: most of your protection has always been logistical rather than legal. Now we are substantially reducing the logistical barriers and can reasonably expect to further reduce them in the near future. Any protections that you think would be a good idea will soon need to be explicitly legal; because the logistics will be increasingly trivial(possibly even self-financing, if you can sell ads somehow...)
Well, since it seems you can get a goodly jail term for shining a laser at an aircraft, I wonder what the incremental cost of using a surface-to-air missile is over the laser pointer?
With the SAM, at least they don't get to use the aircraft for a second look at you...
(No, I don't actually encourage disposing of such a craft using a missile or any other means).
Sounds like a cheap knockoff of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Wait until we downsize the police force to para-military only and just have drones flying overhead blanketing a city with constant surveillance sending a feed directly to a storage. Then another computer can start working with the data batches as they come in. A nice printout with all relevant information regarding the person to be apprehended on the daily sweep.
If you are lucky, you'll just receive a citation in the mail every so often that you'll pay because they have evidence you broke the law and you better not fight it because you'll just lose. It's hard evidence.
For some reason, this same system that will catch everyone breaking the laws won't ever catch politicians or really important people either.
I believe it was titled "Government Surveillance" or something like that. The two sides debated: Law enforcement said its "good" and they would never abuse this data. Stanford ethicists and the EFF argued that its "bad" and its already being abused by law enforcement's flagrant disregard of the Constitution. Interestingly, the arguments were moot since law enforcement complained that the detail resolution of the images were not good enough to justify the costs in terms of actual prosecutions. In other words, it would help to solve crimes, but not necessarily well enough - especially because its hard to ID a perpetrator from above the top of their head. I think we need stop relying on technology to run our criminal justice system. Remember, Soylent Green is people.
TFS said they used an "aircraft", which I guess means "airplane". We better watch out - next thing you know, the sheriff's office will have helicopters and be able to hover, watching someone for a while. With an airplane, they can only watch for a couple minutes before they've flown by.
It is perfectly legal, unless they are looking through your bed room window with some device that sees through your closed curtains, opps your curtains are open, sucks to be you.
punished for... what? for looking at stuff that is outside in plain view from the sky?
take out the snowden stuff. forget the nsa for a minute. leave out the drone aspect.
you are left with cops looking at stuff that is outside. i know i'm supposed to drum up some popular anger right now, but i really just can't.
would you be mad if a cop in a helicopter was flying around the city at 1000 feet and looking at stuff that is outside? at what level of efficiency of cops looking at ANYTHING cross the line from normal cops doing normal cop stuff to stuff to shit your pants over?
THL phish sticks
but that seems unlikely to change the fact that 'power we could use' turns into 'power we just did use' with unpleasant regularity
Their whole job is dealing with people who do crime and ask for forgiveness later. I don't condone what they are doing, but I can see how they could slip in that direction.
punished for... what? for looking at stuff that is outside in plain view from the sky?
For conducting mass surveillance of public places, which is absolutely 100% different from someone merely seeing you, and especially so when something as powerful as the government does it. The problem is a combination of them recording footage and doing so for huge areas. I don't think I even need to explain how this is different from using your eyes to look around.
If you honestly don't see a problem, you need to think a bit harder.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Hopefully, everyone involved with the Sheriff's department will be punished as hard as legally possible and possibly harder
For what? Aerial photography without a license?
The next thing you know, the police will have airplanes that can circle over a known area.
I'm sorry, but I guess I don't understand why this is any bigger deal than cameras on a street corner. Maybe it's having grown up in Baltimore with a police helicopter constantly overhead that's desensitized me.
Doesn't everyone just assume that when in public, everything you do could be observed by someone else? Now, if they were looking in people's windows, that would be a bit creepier.
Not helicopters. They are too expensive. Quadcopter drones possibly. Or areostats. Or blimps. There are lots of choices, each has its advantages and disadvantages. But a robot eye-in-the-sky doesn't need to be very big or support a lot of weight...or be very expensive.
I don't like it, but expect it to happen.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Did you miss this bit?
"“The system was kind of kept confidential from everybody in the public,”[The supervisor of the project at the sheriff's department Sgt. Douglas] Iketani said. “A lot of people do have a problem with the eye in the sky, the Big Brother, so in order to mitigate any of those kinds of complaints, we basically kept it pretty hush-hush.”
That is...not exactly... the sort of attitude you want somebody with access to legalized violence to operate under. 'Yeah, we knew people wouldn't like the idea, so we just did it secretly instead. Listening to complaints is a total pain in the ass.' That alone strikes me as reason enough to clean house of everyone who gave it their approval, regardless of whether I thought the project was a good idea or not.
They probably had a license...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVV_HsHcX0
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
punished for... what? for looking at stuff that is outside in plain view from the sky?
If you honestly don't see a problem, you need to think a bit harder.
Oh I see a problem, namely the storage space required to STORE all this suspect video for later review.... If they do this much, it's going to take a boat load of storage.
You cannot seriously have an issue with the collection of such freely available imagery. ANYBODY flying over this area can take pictures, video etc. Is it somehow a problem because the police do it?
What can the police do these days? Automatic license plate scanning? Red Light cameras? Automated Speed cameras? How about a FLIR camera on a helicopter? (We've been doing that for decades..)
Can tollways collect tolling information? Can employers track their employees? Their assets (say a truck or something):?
What do you think the limit should be?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Point me to a law where this is illegal. Police agencies have used helicopters for decades, and the Supreme court has thrown out evidence if there wasn't probably cause to look over a fence. There is some semblance of balance.
The local ghetto bird flies over our house several times a week on it's way to and fro whatever it's going to and fro from. There is nothing today that doesn't prevent that helicopter from having a camera on it. Oh wait .. it does. It has even shown it's very bright light into our backyard on occasion as it searches for something. Just yesterday, it flew in circles in the area next to our house for at least 30 minutes. The first time, it flew over, I realized I was crouched down in what could be taken as someone hiding (I was drilling holes in the concrete to attach a shade structure to), so I stood up and watched it fly over the next time just to make sure they saw me.
The only things different that I can tell is I can hear the helicopter and not the drone, the helicopter can't stay up as long, and it probably can't fly as high. Try and dehumanize it as much as you want, a person still has to review the footage to make any sense of it. Just as people review traffic camera footage before the tickets go out. In the end, you can still go to court and have a real person testify as to what was being recorded and interpret it.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
ohh i see a problem all right.
"spying" has come to include all stuff we don't like.
personally, i think the laws should be clear in that police don't need to look at anything unless a crime has been reported. but that isn't the law. and it isn't the policy in any city I've been to.
there are CCTV cameras all over cities... but mount one to a plane and its so different?
right and wrong doesn't come down to degrees. This part here: "especially so when something as powerful as the government does it". So because they are good at it, that is a problem?
Either police looking at stuff even when no crime has been reported is wrong, or it isn't. Deal with THAT. Stop getting wrapped up in what implementation they are using or how efficient they are. It isn't MORE wrong because they are now 64% efficient at looking at stuff vs %35 with the previous techniques.
Mass Surveillance is a meaningless term. Each person is free to set the threshold for "mass" at whatever level makes them angry and is likely to shift when topics shift from heroin dealer to kidnapper. A cop with a camcorder in a helicopter at 1000 feet is likely so "surveil" a city block at one time... that is Mass Surveillance for those living in that block.
THL phish sticks
I watched the sample videos.
http://www.persistentsurveilla...
I'm beyond unimpressed.
especially because its hard to ID a perpetrator from above the top of their head.
That's why we need to outlaw hair and head wear. It will be in the best interests of public safety if everyone had a prominent barcode tattooed to the top of their clean shaven, bald head to aid in identification by Law Enforcement surveillance drones.
You cannot seriously have an issue with the collection of such freely available imagery.
I do. Especially when it's the government doing it. We The People can easily restrict their activities if we choose to do so. The fact that "anybody" can do it doesn't mean we should let the government, with its virtually limitless resources and authority, do so.
What can the police do these days? Automatic license plate scanning? Red Light cameras? Automated Speed cameras? How about a FLIR camera on a helicopter?
I think that's all morally wrong. The fact that we allow it means we're not living up to the whole "land of the free and the home of the brave" thing.
What do you think the limit should be?
On the government's use of surveillance technology in public places.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything.
T.Durden
The NSA intrusion into our everyday lives is now ubiquitous. They know we know they know and it's pretty fucking much business as fucking usual.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I don't know of any laws, but I don't care. I'm saying I think it *should* be illegal.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
ANYBODY flying over this area can take pictures, video etc. Is it somehow a problem because the police do it?
Actually, yes -- there are limits to the power of public figures because they also have the ability to abuse said power. If you give someone whose mandate is to enforce the law (catch people doing bad things) the ability to surveil public spaces and review every aspect of that space at any time, you're changing the social contract with law enforcement from how it is currently accepted.
Of course, in reality, this would save money/taxes, resulting in a smaller arrest/fine quota needed, so the smaller police forces could spend more time actually dealing with major issues and less time responding to bogus calls. Right?
I don't think this would help with domestic disturbance calls, which is what the police spend the majority of their time on.
This is getting to be a several time a day occurance...agenda much?
"spying" has come to include all stuff we don't like.
The government is definitely spying on you when it has ubiquitous surveillance devices recording as much as possible, even when it happens in public.
right and wrong doesn't come down to degrees.
When something is done past a certain degree that it becomes harmful (in my eyes), I consider it wrong. Very simple.
So because they are good at it, that is a problem?
Because they have virtually limitless resources and ability to harass, it is a problem. History, with its numerous examples of government abuses, further shows that it is a problem.
Stop getting wrapped up in what implementation they are using or how efficient they are.
So, I should stop thinking about anything and mindlessly declare that the situations are the exact same while disregarding the implementation and efficiency? That sounds ludicrous.
Mass Surveillance is a meaningless term.
"meaningless" is a meaningless term.
You're not going to convince me that the government having surveillance devices installed everywhere in public places, or making use of surveillance drones everywhere, are good things. It just isn't going to happen.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"Straight outta Compton" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
"most of your protection has always been logistical"
The Key Point
-- "Oh. This guy again."
This seems like a general warrant to me. For civilian aircraft, there are minimum altitudes, and no general expectation of privacy from overhead observation at that distance. But in this case, this is for the purpose of gathering evidence. How is that not a general warrant?
but that seems unlikely to change the fact that 'power we could use' turns into 'power we just did use' with unpleasant regularity
Their whole job is dealing with people who do crime and ask for forgiveness later. I don't condone what they are doing, but I can see how they could slip in that direction.
Which is why we have this thing called the United States Constitution, and why that constitution has an amendment (the 4th one, in fact) that deals with this sort of thing. That same constitution also has a concept of separation of powers, and defines what branch of government has what power. Law enforcement (under the executive branch) are only doing half of their job - they're sworn to uphold the law but the are ignoring the highest law, the constitution The judicial branch exists to prevent that, but they don't seem to be very good at doing the part of their job that involves upholding the constitution.
Same can't be said for the spy satellites.
Compton is a combat zone, and literally more dangerous than some war zones:
http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/compton/crime/
If we want the cops to do anything about crime they need situational awareness just as military units need overhead surveillance in urban combat. Officers on the streetcorner many see some things but he won't have an overall picture without more data, and video evidence is what to have in a court of law.
I'd rather have the unblinking eye of a camera than a subjective observer with no camera in a "he said, she said" situation.
This particular case was kept secret, but there is a NOVA episode about something similar being done in a DC suburb. They kept a drone aloft for a month recording literally everything that happened in a small city (well, everything visible from the air). The camera was wide-field high-resolution, so you could crop and zoom any part of the video and get an image comparable to what you might see on a news camera from a helicopter zoomed in. They recorded a whole month, so you could go back and look at what anybody was doing anywhere after the fact.
So, this isn't really news per-se, so much as news that the technology is becoming more ubiquitous.
TFS said they used an "aircraft", which I guess means "airplane". We better watch out - next thing you know, the sheriff's office will have helicopters and be able to hover, watching someone for a while. With an airplane, they can only watch for a couple minutes before they've flown by.
The difference was that in the past they'd have to spend $5-10k and then they can watch one person for a period of an hour or two. Now they can spend $100/day and record everybody in a whole town, without targeting anybody in particular.
This isn't a camera with a zoom lens. This is a high-resolution wide-field camera, that effectively behaves like it is zoomed in on everybody everywhere at the same time.
Actually, one's yard has an expectation of privacy. That's the point of fence heights and the like.
Suddenly using high resolution cameras from high altitude is the equivalent of breaking the window and ripping off the blinds.
Once used it's just a matter of time before yet another step gets taken, and sunbathing besides your pool gets you slapped with indecent exposure.
It prevents all manner of kidnappings, bank robberies, ordinary crime where the get-away vehicle is a car or truck. Rewind to the time and place of the crime, watch where they go. On the negative side is the power this would give a bad agent. If only govt were staffed in good angels, we wouldn't have anything to worry about. Alas they are normal humans. I think this will be the future in most metropolitan areas within a few short years. The benefits simply outweigh the risks of mistreatment. Interdicting crimes against innocents makes a great deal of sense to me. Allowing rogue govt agents to make nefarious use also alarms me. Perhaps access needs to be guarded, justified? I don't have a good answer, but the amount of good that can result from this type of tech is difficult to deny. Kidnap a child and you are visited by law enforcement immediately. Would render a broad spectrum of criminal activity moot. Also could liberate falsely accused. The good uses of this type of tech are fairly profound.
Funny, they try to blame drones for loss of privacy and scare everyone on drone tech... heck they just proved that old fashion w/manned aircraft.
As per the FAA: "In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use." conflicts with privacy laws and now allows the gov't to interpret it in the courts, hence the people lose. Again, it's not the technology, but how the people use it, the above policy is clear evidence.
Now I know why drones are such a fearful technology, imagine the same thing by some citizen (manned or unmanned vehicle + camera) flying over Congress for 6 hrs.... I bet you'd find it's pretty much an empty place and no one working. As someone once said: - What security? - The kind of security he's gonna need.
Criminals have been avoiding the eyes of law enforcement since .... forever. Putting a camera in the sky is like turning on the lights in a room full of cockroaches. They all scurry beneath whatever hiding spots they can find ... but they're still lurking there.
This looks more to me like a device for their sheriff or police chief (whatever they have there) to claim that he's fighting crime hard, so he can get reelected. (We're talking about California, after all, where their legislature thinks they can outlaw the production of bad bodily smells in public.) Knowing a little tiny bit about graphics, I know that there's no way they can cover a 10-square mile area with a camera and get an image with enough resolution to identify anything.
This will at best, force the car thefts, the drug deals, the pimping and everything else but perhaps drunk driving to happen in places there is a canopy, such as a parking garage or inside a structure. Law enforcement isn't going to be able to prove anything by sole reliance of a camera in the sky. They'll still need the eyes of the officers and other witnesses of crime, and nothing significant will have changed.
I imagine the only thing keeping it from going mainstream is the ability to make sure it doesn't record any pesky illegal/immoral activity by police/upper government officials. Kind of like that license plat reader system that was suspended indefinitely in Boston because a reporter was able to get a severely limited dataset from the system and still find "mistakes" (ignoring a stolen motorcycle that went past the same intersection regularly while using the system primarily to write tickets, ignoring the most dense area for overdue tickets the police employee parking lot, etc). Or like all of those police dash cams that have a tendency to have malfunctions/accidents when they might have caught "misconduct" (Hollywood Florida framing, Michael DeHerra Beating, Mark Byrge Arrest,Anthony Warren beating & the Prince George’s County, Maryland incident where SEVEN dashcams "malfunctioned" at once.)
They had (maybe still have) an ARGUS-IS unit puttering around in the vicinity of Quantico, VA for a while, for, um, demonstration purposes only, I'm sure. Now, I suspect that an ARGUS-IS deployment has a price tag that would make the folks at Persistent Surveillance Systems look like a hobby aircraft; but the performance is... impressive.
I suspect that, aside from basic technological advance, it really doesn't help that the Iraq and Afghanistan markets are winding down a bit, so assorted stuff for hunting foreigners we don't care about is now being rebadged and flogged as public safety gear.
Either build a roof over your yard or mow an opt out message into your lawn.
This space intentionally left blank
Consider the fuel costs alone to keep such a system running. Then consider something else that isn't getting funding.
Is this thing really going to provide much benefit for all the resources required to put into it?
On the government's use of surveillance technology in public places.
I'll yield to them public places.. maybe... the problem is their recordings don't even exclude private property. How about... no surveillance of any private places or of public spaces that includes incidental coverage of any private space, without prior express written revokable permission from all property owners and any lawful residents (or rental tenants) freely and voluntarily granted with no order, reward, or coercion, or in excess of the permission granted in writing by all property owners and tenants.
Excluding incidental surveillance from cameras mounted in the windows of a manned non-aerial ground-based police vehicle, no more than 5 feet above the ground, or carried by officers on the ground, during routine law officer duties.
Make note that all that was seen was in public view. Should we have laws that make it illegal to look down from a plane or balloon or whatever? I do think that due to technology being so able to catch people that people had better plan on being far more honest than in the past. And there are upsides to all of this. Eventually the bad guys will realize that they will be quickly caught when they commit crimes. Perhaps we are entering an era in which crime will be impossible.
Meh, not to worry, as soon as those dopey cops realise they were spying on themselves more than anyone else and excuses about it not being turned on wont work, they'll drop the idea, especially as most of their criminal activities do take place in public spaces.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
As seen with a few murder cases recently where people were caught on camera it just means you can do something after the event. Electronic eyes are no replacement for boots on the ground. They are a suppliment.
For what? Aerial photography without a license?
For search without a warrant.
Thought the same thing, but they would probably inject some sort of chip ID somewhere on you, more then likely after you had been arrested, or even at birth. Place sensors thru out various locations to 'swipe' you, ID you, and log you as a suspect into a data base. They probably would be able to type in some predetermined ID number into a drone that will then track you. Maybe the chip will even do some sort of audio recording.
Make note that all that was seen was in public view.
It was?! I don't know Compton, but I would be surprised if there were no private residences with fenced backyards anywhere within the "10-square-mile municipality." That seems unlikely.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
To quote a lesbian, "If you don't want to see it, don't look".
If they do, and they're unmanned by all means, down them.
They don't need a 'license'.
The aircraft simply needs an airworthiness certificate, which the manufacture gets, not the sheriffs department.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
would be so proud....
So.... To further refine your position...
Is it a problem if the images are collected by a private party, but possibly provided to the police?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You cannot seriously have an issue with the collection of such freely available imagery.
What do you think the limit should be?
On the government's use of surveillance technology in public places.
Ok, where I agree that is a clear line, I don't agree with where you draw it.
Personally, I'm OK with automated surveillance in public places, including video, audio, imagery and even automated interpretation of same. But there should be limits to the use of such collections as evidence as follows:
1. Retention of collected data should be time limited, unless being used as evidence in an specific case.
2. Once the delete date has been reached, it cannot be used as evidence in any other criminal case that may come up.
3. Evidence used must be clearly in public spaces, or be following an active line of investigation subject to current evidence collection rules (i.e. requires a warrant, unless there is reasonable cause for the search).
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As I get older and older, this world and all its craptacular descent into one big conglomerated surveillance-based government makes me feel more and more disconnected, displeased and dismayed.
I'm glad I won't have to put up with it for much longer. i suspect the time behind me is longer than the time ahead of me. This is quickly becoming a world i don't want a part of.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
You make a valid point that the technical method used isn't the important aspect, but then go off on some unrelated tangets. I don't think anyone has said, or implied, that the legality of the thing the police see defines whether seeing it was right or wrong, it's a strawman position that you set up to knock down.
You imply a camera on a plane is no worse than a camera on a corner. It's as rediculous as saying that firing a gun in a padded bunker is the same as letting loose with an assault rifle in a packed stadium. A CCTV camera located in a public place, monitoring a public area where society would conclude there is no expectation of privacy is vastly different from a plane flying over peoples private property, including locations society would deam they would have an expectation of privacy at low level and recording detailed imagery are vastly different things.
Including the most shocking of crimes, political dissent.
;)
There's an upside to fingerprinting and DNA sampling everyone, making them wear GPS anklets and removing "meddling" oversight of the police as well
We're not talking about taking footage, we're talking about mass surveillance which is different than the right to record in public. Using surveillance as a dragnet that can view into people's back yards, onto their roofs, and warrantlessly stalk them through city streets in ways that previously would have required a warrant.
Next step: Install infrared sensors behind the lenses. Then you can see *inside* buildings, too! If you don't flush, a squad car will be dispatched before you can leave the building!!
Doesn't even need to be that. Most public streets have municipal lampposts at convenient intervals, 30+ feet tall and fairly well immune to tampering (being too tall and too slick to climb easily), that can provide an excellent and permanent vantage point at minimal expense... and quite possibly without anyone noticing, if cameras are installed to look like part of the existing streetlight and as part of "routine maintenance".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This would never work in the UK.
Yeah - and you'll know any circus clown you see walking on his hands must be up to no good, so better get them tattooed with the barcode on the soles of their feet, too.
If we decide not to allow the public to fly drones around peeping into back yards, the same should apply to the police (without a warrant). The limits on casual/easy police surveillance should be pretty much the same as the limits on the public. The police should be no more than citizens that we have authorized to act in our name.
That said, it may be time to be realistic, that technology is expanding our powers of easy observation beyond historical limits. Create new laws regulating personal and commercial drone camera use, including allowable flight altitudes, linger times, recording and viewing resolutions, etc under various circumstances - with the same standards governing police use without a warrant. Balance new benefits against the loss of a few old privacy benefits. Same goes for things like Google Glass.
The key is to avoid allowing politicians to carve out any special exceptions/powers exclusively for the police - insist that police powers be based on those of the general public.
IMO.
You don't need a license to fly a commercial UAS?
Not even one of these
I don't think it's a good idea to let the government install surveillance equipment everywhere in public places; it makes it that much easier to just ignore the rules and/or change the rules later, since all the equipment will be there.
Plus, the idea of a democratic government having surveillance devices everywhere is creepy and wrong. It just shouldn't happen, good intentions or not.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You mean this coverage? [URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA/] Pretty amazing stuff.
You mean this coverage? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA/ Pretty amazing stuff, but kind of scary when thinking of it being used in the USA.
Theres is a BIG difference between 'everything you do COULD be observed' and 'everything you do IS observed and retainted for future use', this is yet another step towards the latter