Slashdot Mirror


Texas Sheriffs Crash $250k Drone They're Not Supposed To Be Flying

SpaceGhost writes: "The Houston Chronicle reveals that Friday morning a $250,000 drone was lost by the Sheriff's department in Lake Conroe (just north of Houston.) Divers have been searching for the drone. What's more, the drone is reportedly over the FAA's 25-pound weight limit, so they shouldn't have been flying it in the first place (the Chronicle says 49 pounds, the Montgomery County Police Reporter says 29 pounds — either way, it's too heavy). The MCPR article goes on to discuss the recently passed Texas Legislature House Bill 912 which restricts the use of drones to observe private property, likely influenced by the January 2012 discovery of illegal pig blood runoff and subsequent indictment."

93 comments

  1. Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and justify it with liberal interpretation of probable cause later.

    Then a fearful and ignorant populace allow them to keep doing it.

    1. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is one of the saddest truths about our society police should be held to a higher standard with stricter punishments than those applied to regular civilians. But instead they are rarely criminally charged for criminal actives and even more rarely convicted and sentenced on par with regular civilian criminals

    2. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots.

    3. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      They were using the drone to film police activities on the ground. What does that have to do with probable cause?

    4. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They had probable cause that some guys on the ground were using an overweight drone unlawfully.

    5. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not 'probable cause' that's the issue...
      the biggest issue is 'rational basis'.

      Where courts (including the Supreme Court), decides on an outcome FIRST.
      Then works it's way back to the law, to find a 'rational basis' for it's decision.

      So in the context of the police. If they arrest you (unlawfully), and you (lawfully) resist the arrest, you've now 'resisted arrest' and thus are subject to arrest.

    6. Re:Cops do whatever they want by maharvey · · Score: 1

      And just what is it you think the populace can do about it? They have the guns.

    7. Re:Cops do whatever they want by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Now that technology is allowing these abuses to target "us" and not "them" people will start getting angry.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    8. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.

      "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka replied.

    9. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      And just what is it you think the populace can do about it? They have the guns.

      LEO or the populace? This is Texas, remember? Carrying a firearm is not only a right but also a requirement there.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    10. Re:Cops do whatever they want by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      How did they lose it in a lake if it was observing police activity on the ground?

    11. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      What do you think ground means or refers to?

    12. Re:Cops do whatever they want by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Duh. You can't see ground when you're over water. Also dogs can't look up.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    13. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2

      That is what you get when you fed drones on a diet of doughnuts!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    14. Re:Cops do whatever they want by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      Ha!
      That movie is on right now

      Thanks,
      Major Major M. Major

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    15. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      "But instead they are rarely criminally charged for criminal actives and even more rarely convicted and sentenced on par with regular civilian criminals"

      They protect the rich and powerful, what were you expecting? The police and military have always been the gangsters for capitalism. Who was it that attacked the civil rights movement again?

    16. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not true. Texas has stricter Concealed Handgun requirements than most other states. It may come as a shock, but we don't all ride horses either.

    17. Re:Cops do whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thats because we are a capitalist country dumbass. In socialist countries the police and military are gangsters for socialism. What is your point?

  2. Texas Rangers by jonyen · · Score: 2

    The eyes of the ranger are upon you, and they're quite heavy.

    1. Re:Texas Rangers by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The eyes of the ranger are upon you, and they're quite heavy.

      The eyes, or the rangers?

    2. Re:Texas Rangers by jonyen · · Score: 1

      The eyes, given that the drones exceed the FAA's limit, in case you didn't read the article.

    3. Re:Texas Rangers by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      The eyes of the ranger are upon you, and they're quite heavy.

      The eyes, or the rangers?

      First one, then the other...

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  3. Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True in Roman times.

    True in Victorian times.

    True today.

    Note to America: That which removes your freedoms out of fear makes you Weaker, not Stronger.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you'll be first in line, not that that's worth anything.

    2. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by rossdee · · Score: 2

      No, the first in line is the Sirius Cybernetic Corp

    3. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who will watch the watchers? That's easy -- private drones under the 25lb weight limit.

    4. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      we solved that issue.

      The people watch them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The fact that we're discussing this means that we're watching them.

      The FAA and the Texas Legislature are restricting the capabilities and the uses of drones.

    6. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome your new drone overlords! Share and enjoy! Share and enjoy!

    7. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's turtles all the way down

    8. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by mjwx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who will watch the watchers?

      WeightWatchers perhaps?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Who will watch these selfsame watchers? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Who will watch the watchers? That's easy -- private drones under the 25lb weight limit.

      You may be joking, but that's the answer. The problem of "who will watch the watchers" has long been solved: Everyone. Those concerned about the watchers behavior should be allowed to watch the behaviors of the watchers with their own independent watching group. This is the basic fundamental principal of accountability, and it can only be corrupted if secrecy is allowed. Personally, instead of drones, I would use a simple image recognition system hooked up to a couple of telescopes and a mesh of at least three software defined radio scanners overlapping amongst neighbors (for triangulation and initial aiming of the amateur telescopes / webcams + lenses). Simple image recognition lets me automate shooting star and back-yard bird watching, minus the radio triangulation. Such a setup is relatively cheap, so if drones become common I suspect amateur astronomy / neighborhood watch / police scanner folks will use Google Maps or Open Streetmap and enable you to pull up a map of drone paths in your area over time and even watch them zooming around on your Internet connected device (another reason why remote kill switches should never be accepted). I'm not the only one with the know how to produce drone surveillance mesh network nodes, but if no one else does, and the drones become common, then I'll simply make production of automated drone watching gizmos the target of my robotics hobby.

      It is not the watching that is the primary problem, but the secrecy -- Disallowing the watching of certain activities. Governments should be afforded no secrecy in the governance of their own population. A government oversight committee for the secret watchers only moves the problem of secrecy around. It's not like we need secrecy in government. We brashly do whatever we want and announce it to the world as we do so. Who needs any secrecy if you frequently thumb your nose at the world and do as you please despite reprimands and condemnations? Any who are at comparable technological capability are already watching each other quite effectively, it is only the less powerful citizenry who are excluded from making informed decisions via government secrecy. The idea that secrecy is needed is refuted by the existence of spies and/or double agents. Even a lowly IT contractor like Snowden proves that our systems are certainly leaking all of the data about our citizens to our enemies. Might as well open the info up to the public -- Ah, but then we'd use it to stay up to date on the activities of our government officials.

      If your public policy is the same as your actions then you need no secrecy. If back-room arms deals with native warlords are required to save lives then the citizenry will understand, but only if the information to understand the nuances of the situation are allowed. Because power corrupts, citizens should be able to prove their government is not acting against them. They can not do this if secrecy prevents them from watching the watchers. One of the things a watcher of watchers will note is the Cost vs Benefit analysis. If we spend a bunch of money to have more drones flying about, or more TSA agents (who fail to prevent any terrorism, or even keep stowaways out of landing gear), etc. and that expense is not beneficial (lack of crime, no significant benefit vs cheaper neighborhood watch, passengers themselves being the detector and deterrent to terrorism now, etc), then the budget for the watchers can be cut to appropriate levels.

      What we need is not absolute security, but spending proportionate to the actual threat. Heart disease and accidents kill more people than 400 9/11's every year, yet we are not banning cars and French fries; You're 4 times more likely to be struck by lightning than by terrorists, so anti-terrorism budget should be 1/4th of what our government spends on subsidizing lighting rods and rubberized suits. The public shouldn't be paying for services they do

  4. and nothing of value by hguorbray · · Score: 0

    was lost

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:and nothing of value by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      So that's the junk that ended up in my backyard!?!

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  5. Find MH370... by TchrBabe · · Score: 1

    And you will find this drone...

  6. I see what you did there! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    While privacy is preferred, if there is to be a panopticon, it must be one everyone can look through, not just government i.e. people in power.

    "With warrant" is not enough -- not when all it takes is one corrupt lackey to abuse it on the orders of a politician.

    A drone is just one of many aspects to this new tool of dictatorship...especially when only government can use it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:I see what you did there! by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "With warrant" is not enough -- not when all it takes is one corrupt lackey to abuse it on the orders of a politician.

      As far as I can tell, our police is perfectly capable of exceeding their authorities without orders from a politician.

    2. Re:I see what you did there! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you are outside, you have no right to privacy from being viewed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:I see what you did there! by yoder · · Score: 1

      "With warrant" is not enough -- not when all it takes is one corrupt lackey to abuse it on the orders of a politician.

      Especially when that politician is taking their orders from their corporate master.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
  7. Well, it's Texas by Krishnoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    the Chronicle says 49 pounds, the Montgomery County Police Reporter says 29 pounds — either way, it's too heavy

    Shouldn't they deserve a special exception from the FAA's weight limit? After all, everything's bigger in Texas.

    1. Re:Well, it's Texas by v1 · · Score: 1

      29, 49, so close, does it even matter?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Well, it's Texas by ZG-Rules · · Score: 1
  8. Famous Texas saying...... by Bravoc · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

    1. Re:Famous Texas saying...... by sribe · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not a famous "saying", it's famous "LAST WORDS" ;-)

  9. Privacy to pollute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of the noise about drones and "privacy" is astroturf campaigns funded by industrial polluters who don't want to get caught.

    1. Re:Privacy to pollute by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      I don't think Texas can legally ban drones anyway, it's the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA. Just like states can't pass laws restricting the use of radio frequencies because again, it's the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC.

    2. Re:Privacy to pollute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Texas can legally ban drones anyway, it's the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA. Just like states can't pass laws restricting the use of radio frequencies because again, it's the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC.

      They didn't ban drones. They banned photography from drones and there are lots of exceptions.

  10. Silly people by penguinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't you know that laws don't apply to government officials?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Silly people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it has nothing to do with gays or drugs, I'm sure the Republicans will all be screaming "states rights!" over any FAA investigation.

    2. Re:Silly people by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Government official get arrested and prosecuted.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Silly people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signs you might be an idiot: you bring partisan politics into things which aren't partisan.

      Congratulations! You're an idiot.

    4. Re:Silly people by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those stories don't get mentioned on slashdot.

    5. Re:Silly people by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Not as often as they should be.

      Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule the First Amendment applies to government employees.

    6. Re:Silly people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you know that laws don't apply to government officials?

      Only if you're in the White House!!!!

  11. Evil bit by Tailhook · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Activists SHOULD set the evil bit to zero (0) while hunting violators of pollution regulations and other worthy causes. The cops MUST set the evil bit to one (1) while abusing power. At other times the cops MAY set the evil bit to zero (0), especially when gathering evidence on rich people, gun owners, for-profit corporations and non-compliant ranchers.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Evil bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh c'mon evil bit reference well used in context and on topic can't be -1
      if i had mod points left!

    2. Re:Evil bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was lame when it was new. It hasn't aged well.

  12. hunting for planes by v1 · · Score: 0

    they've been looking for an entire jetliner for weeks (and positively spamming every newsfeed in the world the entire time), how do they expect to find a lost drone?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:hunting for planes by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      Because the search radius not thousands of miles?

  13. Anbody seen this particular ShadowHawk personally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment in the story appears to be from Congressman Brady:

    With a jet engine it is not stealth like most think.

    My problem with that is that the ShadowHawk is available in turbine and 2-stroke versions and the photo in the story (supposedly of MCSO's) shows a 2-stroke muffler on the tail boom. So not a turbine. I only started looking because of this other comment, also from Brady:

    According to Brady, the device costs about $40 per hour to operate, versus $500 per hour for a manned helicopter.

    Which is bullshit. As with $500/hr for the full-size manned helicopter, $40/hr might just cover fuel costs but doesn't do anything for regular maintenance of the helicopter. Even model helicopters cost a lot more than $40/hr to run.

  14. Texas Sheriffs crash 250K$ drone by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Were they texting while flying?

    1. Re:Texas Sheriffs crash 250K$ drone by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Considering this is Texas more likely they were shooting while flying.

  15. ALL YOUR PIG BLOOD ARE BELONG TO US! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's Texas and the Harris county cops can damn well do whatever they please. Only, it's not pig blood they are looking for, it is you!

  16. Why spent 1/4 M$ for an observation platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0) Hey, spending 250K for 2.5k value is pretty good for us.
    1) Hmm, I guess we should have had some nerds on the payroll.
    2) Don' be silly, you didn't think the money actually went to...
    3) The price is right because we intend to put X on it later
    4) Being on the national news, priceless.
    5) Note to self: try to stay off the news.
    6) What was that question again?

  17. Looking in a lake .... by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..... for a 29 pound drone. No, it was 49 pounds.

    Sounds like a fishing story to me.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. FAA website is not a reliable source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A COA can be approval for anything. There is no inherent limitation on weight. The FAAs website is chalk full of PR half truths. Source: I've received a COA for a >25 lb aircraft.

    1. Re:FAA website is not a reliable source by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      A COA can be approval for anything. There is no inherent limitation on weight. The FAAs website is chalk full of PR half truths. Source: I've received a COA for a >25 lb aircraft.

      More importantly, there is no legal binding policy regulating drones at all, at least not as far as I can find.

      The FAA has clearly stated that they don't want people flying drones for commercial use without a license. However, they never created a regulation to that effect, so it is really nothing more than a suggestion, and not legally enforceable.

  19. There will be no consequences by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    The FAA will not do anything to punish illegal drone flights by law enforce^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H domestic anti-terror officers.

  20. At $10,000 per pound by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 0
    Maybe I should get out of my keylime investment.

    Someone is getting scammed, and it is you, the taxpayers.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:At $10,000 per pound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, If I find it it is going to a pawn shop or on ebay. Or on that Chinese site.
      If I see another $250K cruising around, gunna see if a potato gun or bird catch nets can down it for easy extra cash.
      But it looks like another ignorant lowlife took it to the scrap metal merchant where it would be crushed.

      Better than pretending an alien spacecraft escaped from the vehicular holding yard.

  21. You dumb mother fuckers in time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be trivial to subjugate you to any will they wish to impose. and all your guns will be useless to free your bond.
    This is a fact

  22. Sgt. Bubba, Yew Hold Ma Beer a Minute Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, watch this here, I seen it in a movie once...

  23. Weight limit by TimOBrien8837 · · Score: 1

    It's easy to get a waiver for the weight limit. Lots of giant-scale r/c'ers with planes twice that.

  24. There are things Texas CAN do... by mmell · · Score: 1

    ...they can regulate how police organizations are permitted to use existing technology and equipment. Ridiculous example - a police department in Texas may be able to get their hands on an M-1 tank, doesn't mean they can use it. Of course, they'll actually get to use it once, but after that...

    1. Re:There are things Texas CAN do... by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      The small town of Washington, Iowa, pop 7000. Just got a surplus MRAP.
      http://dailyiowan.com/2014/04/...

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  25. School Boy Antics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like a 6 grade boy with a pack of condoms and an issue of Hustler for the first time.

    Ha ha

  26. Private drones by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    Once the technology becomes ubiquitous, watch for private drones armed with small air-to-air rockets being used to take out police drones.

    1. Re:Private drones by cusco · · Score: 1

      RC plane with a couple of ropes trailing behind should be enough, especially for the helicopter drones.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  27. Looks more like an army. by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looks more like an army than a police department.

  28. Deputy Dog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the headline says "Sheriffs", but the story mentions ONE sheriff's department. Is the author perhaps confusing "sheriff" with "deputy sheriff"?

  29. Just another fine example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of texan hick cops who obvious have contempt for the very law they profess to enforce, as they dont follow the rules themselves, with their new toys.

  30. Same department? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the same department that crashed a drone into their own armored vehicle full of SWAT personnel during a photo op? This seems a lot less like mechanical difficulties and more like inexperienced/inept officers who are blaming everything on their new, expensive, unnecessary toys.

    http://gizmodo.com/5890507/pol...

  31. Here hold my beer, watch this. BOOM by gelfling · · Score: 1

    And so goes what everyone knew what would happen when you gave drones to cops.

  32. Ewar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully somebody used a little EWAR to bring it down into a lake.

  33. In some ways, not in others by tusam · · Score: 1

    Similar toys but military personnel usually get real consequences instead of paid vacation when they fsck up.

  34. Boys will be boys by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Even when they wear blue. Probably having too much fun.

  35. I live 4 blocks from Lake Conroe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all honesty, the sherriff's department here is inept, overweight, and looking for trouble. I do not exaggerate. I'm surprised they have anyone on staff who think they could even fly a drone. They likely thought since because they can play Xbox, they can fly a drone. Again, this place is abjectly redneck. You can almost hear the locals whisper in hushed questioning tones: "Internet...??? I've heard tell of such a thing..."

  36. Well, Texas used to be an independent nation. by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

    I guess they haven't lost some habits.