Can Police Be Trusted With Drones?

[Redfairen]

Around the country, a small but growing number of localities are considering the use of domestic drones—aircraft that are smaller, lighter, and cheaper (though not much less controversial) than what the military uses in Afghanistan. Police departments could outfit drones with infrared sensors that see through walls, facial recognition software, or technology that intercepts calls and emails. Yet the the federal government doesn't do much to regulate how drones can use such technologies to collect information on private citizens.

Privacy activists are trying to put pressure on state and federal regulators by holding protests in this liberal and tech-savvy Bay Area county, which could become the first local government in California to buy a drone. "We oppose the use of public resources to surveil and suppress our communities," said Michael Segal, an attorney with Alameda County Against Drones, a group whose dozens of members wore bright pink "Say No To Drones" stickers. "We want a drone-free zone."

Last year, Congress passed a law mandating that the Federal Aviation Administration open up US airspace to drones, and the FAA made it easier for law enforcement and other "public agencies" to get a drone permit. Records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) indicate that at least 81 public entities—including 17 sheriff's and police departments—have petitioned the agency for the right to fly drones.

Alameda County's Sheriff Ahern argues that buying something like a $100,000, three-pound "Scout" surveillance drone should be a no-brainer for the department. It would cost far more to purchase and operate a helicopter, and the drone can sample plumes of toxic chemicals in the event of a release, or use its infrared scanner to detect wildfires, or find lost children. "I think this is the future of technology," he said, "and we can work together to make sure that this works appropriately."


http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/meet-california-sheriff-who-wants-use-drones

[FarPoint]

1. I will keep it simple....

NO.

[RC]

2. There is a move afoot to make drones illegal for private use, but legal for anything

law enforcement wants.

[Recursion]

18. Nope. RC planes aren't going anywhere

I've been flying "drones" since I was 9 years old, and they aren't going to be illegal any time soon.

[RC]

19. I didn't say that.

I said there is a move afoot to make drones illegal for private use. That part is true. I doubt it will actually get anywhere, though.
Some law enforcement types only want drones to spy on us. We are not suppose to spy on them.

[Recursion]

20. Yes you did. RC planes are an example of drones

They are not going to be illegal, period, and there's no movement to make them so.

[RC]

21. Read it again.

This time with comprehension.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=288470

[Recursion]

22. You are simply wrong. Nobody is trying to make RC planes illegal for private use.

There simply is no such movement.

I think you may misunderstand what "drone" means?

[RC]

23. I know what a drone is.

Even Hobby Drones Could Be Made Illegal In Texas
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/privacy-and-drones

Place limits on the use of drones
In Montana, the state Senate has already approved two bills defining the uses of drones by local police departments and by individuals. Those bills are currently being evaluated in the House, and will likely be passed along to the governor’s desk with little trouble.
http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/editorial/place-limits-on-the-use-of-drones/article_98fdfce8-7a57-11e2-8012-001a4bcf887a.html

What you do not understand is that this will eventually effect ALL private remote control flying anything, because a camera and transmitter, or just a camera itself can weigh only a few ounces. Because it can be difficult to tell if a private flying anything has a camera on not, our genius legislators will try to legislate private use into illegality, because someone MIGHT put a camera on their model plane. All it will take is one fuzzy picture from a drone of a topless woman sun bathing as the excuse.

I did not say 'will', as in forgone conclusion. But people ARE trying to ban private use right now. There was a news story a month or so ago of a police chief wanting to outlaw ALL private model planes, drones, etc., because of the spy issue, and only allow the police to use to use drones.

[Recursion]

24. You should read that article, it agrees with me :)

Texas is not moving to make drones illegal. It's moving to make private surveillance using unmanned aircraft illegal. I knew that already.

[RC]

25. Your model airplane is classified as "private"

[Recursion]

29. And Texas wants to keep me from taking pictures with it

But then I already knew that. And that isn't what you said.

[longship]

3. Can high schoolers be trusted with drones?

Look! This technology is available to anybody, off the shelf. Even high school students can do it. Plus, not all drone technology is evil.

Here's one good thing drone technology has done (among many others):


Drone tech is neither evil nor good. It's how it's used that determines the ethics.

There's another thing about drones. There is no stopping them. The technology is here to stay. So if you're worried about them realize that the only rational response is to regulate their use, not stopping their use.

[EastKYLiberal]

4. No, but I can't say the Tacocopter drone is a horrible idea:

[Skidmore]

5. Nope.

Police can't prove that they can be trusted to use nonlethal methods at their disposal without abusing the authority given them. In the absence of being able to disabuse the public and the law enforcement units that dawning a uniform doesn't endow you automatically with the label of "hero" and heroic sized egos to go with it, I don't know how to change my vote to a yes.

[Recursion]

17. We aren't talking about armed drones

Seriously, I think DU sees the word "drone" and sometimes stops thinking. We're talking about surveillance.

[Vanje]

6. "Pull!"

[TeamPooka]

7. Since they can't be trusted with nightsticks, no. nt

[lunatica]

8. Can anyone be trusted with drones is a better question

Unless the use of drones legitimately includes abuse of power and killing innocent people, I would say no one and no government can be trusted with them.

[Ikonoklast]

9. Cops can't even get the addresses of wanted criminals correct.

They terrorize families on a routine basis because no one thought to make sure that they were busting down the door of the right house by checking the warrant first.

[Dawson Leery]

10. NO!

Eventually they will want military drones (ARMED DRONED).
Drones should not be used in the domestic field.

[brooklynite]

11. How is a drone any worse or more intrusive than a helicopter?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. As long as the drones don't get into terrorists' hands

it's kind of scary. at least with the military they keep them locked up. If they start letting them out then they could get into the wrong hands.

[Sunlei]

13. makes me wonder who will be the first innocent American to die when one of those crashes.

$100,000 dollar model airplane.? Be safer with a little hot air balloon and a camera or rent satellite time.

[bemildred]

14. A better questions is should we trust them with guns? nt

[Myrina]

15. Oh hell no.

90% of cop shops are already 90% corrupt.

[Recursion]

16. A safer and cheaper way to do what they do with helicopters

I literally can't fathom how people are against this.

[samsingh]

26. no

[MotherPetrie]

27. Hell no

[graham4anything]

28. Yes for law enforcement, (same with any guns) NO to any private person

as for guns, let's make this a gun-free society and only law enforcement has guns in the street.

private people can keep them in their house so nobody is taking them away.

And then enforce the new laws.

and law enforcement should not have the ability to have a gun once off duty.

That corrupt cop Dorner had much too easy access didn't he