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."

63 of 93 comments (clear)

  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 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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!
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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?

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

      What do you think ground means or refers to?

    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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"
    13. 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?

    14. 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 rossdee · · Score: 2

      No, the first in line is the Sirius Cybernetic Corp

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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. Find MH370... by TchrBabe · · Score: 1

    And you will find this drone...

  5. 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)
  6. 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
  7. 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" ;-)

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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
    2. Re:Silly people by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

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

    3. 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.

  10. 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!
  11. Re:hunting for planes by hax4bux · · Score: 1

    Because the search radius not thousands of miles?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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"
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. Looks more like an army. by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looks more like an army than a police department.

  21. 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.

  22. 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...

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

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

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

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

    I guess they haven't lost some habits.