HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » McGinn: SPD ending drone ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:03 PM

McGinn: SPD ending drone program, returning drones to vendor

Source: KOMOTV





SEATTLE (AP) - The mayor of Seattle is ending the police department's drone program after local residents protested.

Mayor Mike McGinn announced Thursday the Seattle police department will not use two small drones it obtained through a federal grant. McGinn says the unmanned aerial vehicles will be returned to the vendor.

The police department had said drones will be used to provide an overhead view of large crime scenes, serious accidents, disasters and search and rescue operations. The department had said drones won't be used for random surveillance and won't carry weapons.

Read more: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/McGinn-SPD-ending-drone-program-returning-to-vendor--190294501.html





The Citizens Spoke And WON This Battle

39 replies, 3443 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply McGinn: SPD ending drone program, returning drones to vendor (Original post)
rsmith6621 Feb 2013 OP
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #1
rsmith6621 Feb 2013 #2
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #5
Great Cthulhu Feb 2013 #8
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #9
PSPS Feb 2013 #11
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #13
Great Cthulhu Feb 2013 #17
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #18
freshwest Feb 2013 #31
nauthiz Feb 2013 #4
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #6
nauthiz Feb 2013 #7
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #10
nauthiz Feb 2013 #39
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #23
suffragette Feb 2013 #15
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #16
suffragette Feb 2013 #19
ancianita Feb 2013 #21
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #22
ancianita Feb 2013 #25
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #27
ancianita Feb 2013 #28
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #29
Ian Iam Feb 2013 #30
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #36
ancianita Feb 2013 #33
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #34
Ash_F Feb 2013 #32
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #35
Katashi_itto Feb 2013 #3
PSPS Feb 2013 #12
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #14
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #24
ancianita Feb 2013 #26
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #37
ancianita Feb 2013 #38
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #20

Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:09 PM

1. So if these drones arent armed exactly why were they a bad idea OP?

Was it the whole "OMG the may be spying on me or others" aspect? If so then isnt that already being done when the police fly helicopters?
Or is it that they cost to much to run though I would have thought that buying, maintaining and dispatching a helicopter as well as paying the pilot and the fuel costs involved would have been the more expensive option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:17 PM

2. Police Trust



...Do a google search on the SPD and you will see what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:23 PM

5. How about instead you just toss a link up to a specific article you read?

After all you are the one who claims to have trust issues with the SPD so its only right that you provide the links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:42 PM

8. if you can't work teh google

 

or are so completely unaware of the trust issues engendered by SPD, then you're too ignorant to have a seat at this table. You're the one asking questions that anyone could answer for themselves with five minutes of research ... oh wait, this is just an excuse to side-step the issue, isn't it. Very well, I'll bite: Google keywords "SPD" "murder" "abuse" "Justice Department" for a start. Any combination. If that doesn't clarify things for you then feel free to hide in a corner and unfuck you're jack-booted self.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Cthulhu (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:50 PM

9. Oh I can work google just fine, what I cannot do is pretend to guess your viewpoint on

a subject, that subject being the SPD.
For example I could put in a search for "SPD" on google but the odds are the first hit would be the SPD homepage but that would fail to explain to me why you have a trust issue with them as only you can explain that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:15 PM

11. Do your homework

Seattle's police department, besides being quite corrupt and festooned with thugs and lowlifes, is currently operating under a consent decree with the Justice Department for its brutality targeting minorities.

It is a rogue outfit unworthy of any "trust."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:25 PM

13. Thats "your" opinion and I can respect that but how do you know if that is the same reason

rsmith6621 or Great Cthulhu have? Have you considered that maybe the issue Great Cthulhu has is they got busted for DUI and rsmith6621 got pulled over for speeding by the SPD? Or maybe rsmith6621 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousin got busted for drugs and Great Cthulhu got ticketed for parking to close to a fire hydrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #13)


Response to Great Cthulhu (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:57 PM

18. No, I havent been busted for any of those reasons though judging by your reaction

I apologize as those were merely examples I used as one of them many possible reasons for your opinion of the SPD of which one would appear to have accidentally hit close to the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:03 PM

31. Don't bother to apologize. MIRT has removed the poster from our happy group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:19 PM

4. I wouldnt want them either

It's essentially a trust issue. Just because you're already being spied on doesn't mean you should make it easier or give an organization a license to do it whenever they want. This technology would allow that. I wish people would stop comparing drones to helicopters, it's not the same thing.

You must be one of those hawk Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nauthiz (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:25 PM

6. "comparing drones to helicopters, it's not the same thing." How do you figure that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:31 PM

7. Easy

Drones are operated remotely 24/7 by a group of people who constantly monitor whatever it is they're looking at. They just need to be refueled, you can have someone always at the helm watching. You actually have to have people in the helicopter.

Having someone in the helicopter and not thousands of miles away, from the standpoint of human psychology, is much different. Someone a thousand miles away has a much easier time pulling the trigger than someone right in the helicopter. These things are weapons and can be outfitted as such. Just because they say they won't be weaponized doesn't meant that won't change. I'm sure cops in helicopters carry weapons with them, so you'd probably make the argument that since cops in helicopters carry guns, it's fine that drones do the same thing.

The police can do their job just fine the way they have it now.

As far as trusting the police as an institution, I think that they pretty much go either way now. Ever since the first police beating has happened, there's no reason to give police this kind of power. At all.

Our stupid drug and immigration laws just need to be changed and you'd see much less need for police in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nauthiz (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:13 PM

10. Those reasons fail.

First unarmed drones are no more a weapon than an unarmed helicopter is, if this was an issue of armed drones replacing unarmed helicopters I would fully agree but its not.
As for the part about having someone in the helicopter? Ok psychologically I admit it provides a nice illusion of safety to think that a human is inside the helicopter but thats all it is.
I did have a chuckle though over the whole "The police can do their job just fine the way they have it now."
Why? Because just because you believe something was fine doesnt mean we should bury our heads in the sand when it comes to change, if we did that then we would be eating uncooked meat still because things were so much better before "fire" was discovered or atleast I am sure there was a Neanderthal way back then who thought that and we all know how they ended up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:49 PM

39. Back at you

You can arm a helicopter and you can arm a drone. The fact that they have it leaves the option open.

Secondly, the fact it's a human in the helicopter isn't a small, trivial issue as you make it. Who operates the drone? Who tells them what to do? What about private drones operated by private companies with their own chain of command? Having a real life human in a helicopter is a bigger leap from having an unmanned drone being operated by someone who you may or may not know and therefore don't have full accountability over. It's a trust issue plain and simple.

As for your last point, I had a good laugh. We're not holding our heads in the sand. I'm sure people like you were fine with the advance of nuclear weapons. After all, they'd just be bigger bombs right? It's a technological advancement in killing people, nothing further, right? Doesn't raise any new questions and is comparable to older technology and doesn't require any investigation into our ethics and trust in our institutions of power? Right?

Fail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:10 PM

23. there are some comparisons, i'd hazard a guess

drones are prob a lot cheaper.

copters are noisier.

i'd think any evidence from either would have to hold up in court?

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/06/150128344/faith-in-seattle-police-shaken-by-doj-investigation

go figure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:50 PM

15. The article posted by the OP states many of the reasons

Just click the link to see them.

Here's a part of it from the article:
One of the program's key adversaries was the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the drones were obtained without any public input or discussion.

"We applaud the mayor's action," spokesman Doug Honig said Thursday. "Drones would have given the police unprecedented abilities to engage in surveillance and intrude on the privacy of people in Seattle ... and there was a never a strong case made that Seattle needed them for public safety."

Moving forward, the ACLU would like to see the Legislature adopt "very tight restrictions" on law-enforcement drones statewide, Honig said.

If you want more specific local information, here's another link:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/07/mayor-will-kill-spds-drone-program

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to suffragette (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:51 PM

16. Thank you but my post wasnt asking

the reasons that the article gave but rather I was wondering why the OP believes unarmed drones are a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:16 AM

19. The OP's answer to yo upthread is consistent with the reasons given in the articles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:02 AM

21. You're wondering? Bullshit. You're challenging the OP's very normal idea that people don't want to

be constantly monitored in The Commons as if they're out in some prison yard. Got that? Even in the fascist United Sparta of America, people would at least like the illusion of autonomy and freedom of movement in public spaces, instead of being treated as some would-be criminal in the company store.

You're speciously arguing for drones while gratuitously, idly challenging good news in the people's interest. Are you really a Democrat? Are you even real?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:47 AM

22. No. I am asking whats the difference of unarmed drones vs manned helicopters.

Now since you decided to stick your nose in it why dont you explain to me your reasons? And keep in mind if you present a none insulting reason thats actually logical and not full of "OMGZ they be spying on me!!! And if you dont agree with me you must be with them" I might actually agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:21 PM

25. Heh heh. I and my nose really don't have a have to add to my own and others' adequate explanations.

I was fine with your first post and actually had no intention of posting anything, myself, just getting the gist of the issue. If, at some point, you'd just stopped implying that there is a case for drones, your challenging others' views on this militarized security practice wouldn't have been annoying and I and my nose wouldn't have stuck our two cents in.

I stated why I and others resist drone use. Drones over America defies all common sense for those who have known relative autonomy and freedom of movement. Any person, place or thing's ''spying" incriminates those spied upon and is itself insulting. You might feel used to surveillance in general, but why should you. There will be no 'land of the free and home of the brave' if there comes a time when the young and innocent get used to cradle to grave surveillance. I hope it hasn't come to pass. That's how the oppressed get pacified, isn't it. The oppressor does it 'for their own good.'

Since you challenge by persistent "wondering" and "asking," you yourself should present the case for drone use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:44 PM

27. My apologies but do keep in mind please

that challenging someone is what gets things changed and it makes people think.
For example schools would be segregated still if no one challenged it, women wouldnt be able to vote if no one challenged it, abortion would still be totally illegal if no one challenged it and slavery would legal if no one had challenged it.
But as for the drones I get that you are afraid of the drone but I believe it might be misplaced since the drones can only see what anyone else can see albeit from a greater height.
Also you do realize they could have been doing roughly the same thing all this time with spy satellites, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:55 PM

28. Yes. Of course. But satellites haven't also killed 4,700 people in the last four years, have they.

If you really think that what a drone sees is only what its 'flyer' sees, you must have missed how surveillance technology has become so much more penetrating in recent years. If there come to be no identity boundaries, there will be no freedom to create, decide, move, and worst of all, think. There will be no 'persons' except those fictional ones on paper recently enshrined by SCOTUS as persons. The rest non-paper persons will become 'organics.' Is this the brave new world you want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:52 PM

29. Ah but these are unarmed drones not the armed ones.

Yes, of course its the same tech and yes they could in theory be equipped later on with weapons but the same could be said for every boat floating or every airplane in the sky.
If you want to be worried about the government spying though I suggest looking more towards the wiretap area, now thats scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:56 PM

30. Why are you so obsessed with this matter?

 

Have you a financial stake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian Iam (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:08 AM

36. Sorry to bust your little conspiracy theory but nope.

I havent any "stake" at all in the whole drone issue, in fact I live clear on the other side of the country from Seattle which is part of the reason I was asking why the OP and others objected to the SPD using unarmed drones rather than helicopters which I would think would be more expensive to operate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:35 PM

33. The price of freedom = eternal vigilance. Not worry. Not paranoia. Not fear. Vigilance.

It's what's for dinner.

Your boat/airplane analogy fails. They are, historically and currently, clearly delineated as either commercial or military, with no mystified mixing of the twain . Don't infantilize legitimate adult vigilance as chicken little ranting. And don't anesthetize yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to cstanleytech (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:32 PM

32. Maybe if the government hadn't used them the way they had...

...killing unarmed people, often women and children, in their sleep or while attending funerals, then maybe there wouldn't be such a stigma against them.

See rightwing nutbags, this is why we can't have nice things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:03 AM

35. You wont get any argument from me over that.

The government clearly has messed up a number of times with the use of the armed drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:17 PM

3. NRA will be upset

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:16 PM

12. With their newly-installed string of surveillance cameras, maybe they decided they weren't needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:27 PM

14. Possible, more likely imo though its a PR issue do to the overuse of armed drones overseas.

After all any surveillance camera system can only cover so much and they arent exactly mobile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:08 PM

24. its PR, stock prices, and boys with toys. or girls with toys

“Requiring a warrant is incredibly stupid,” barked Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute. “It won’t work.”

Drones buzzing quietly overhead, Whitehead warned, will collect loads of information, including license plate numbers, wi-fi data and secret passwords. Equipped with right components, they’ll peak through walls, which he believes bypasses the need for warrants.

Whitehead spent the past two years researching drones, their past, present and, most importantly,their future. During his study, he authored model legislation that he sent to the 50 state legislatures. He said he’s very serious about restraining the surveillance state, though he knows it cannot be fully barred.

“There will be drones everywhere,” he said. “There’s too much money to be made.”

Analysts project the drone industry, now worth $5.9 billion annually, will more than double to $11.3 billion by 2020. Whitehead envisions domestic drones equipped with everything from high-power cameras with facial recognition technology to rubber bullets and sound cannons to break up political rallies or assemblies.
http://watchdog.org/67428/opposing-parties-groups-unite-as-drone-warfare-comes-to-state-capitols/

***

As one of the proven fraud-fighting leaders in the country, Ms. Webb was Assistant Vice President of AIG’s Global Fraud Unit, as well as a private contractor for the federal government, fighting Medicare fraud.

Linda Webb is currently the President of Contego Services Group, LLC.
http://contegoservicesgroup.com/executiv-team/linda-webb-president

that's who owns the drone makers ^^^

http://contegoservicesgroup.com/executiv-team

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:31 PM

26. Do you know if Contego is among the vendors that SPD are returning their drones to?

I'd sure like to see any list of drone makers in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:34 AM

37. I forgot the right link in that previous post

And now I'm trying to post from my phone. I forgot the link to the company owned by contigo it's called draganfly they make toy helicopters also. Thedy're from Canada which is a bit odd. Try searching for Canada UK draganfly something weird is going on there. Possibly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:13 AM

38. Thank you, much appreciated!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:45 AM

20. K&R!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread