Slashdot Log In
Houston Police Test Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Nov 24, 2007 01:18 PM
from the all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace dept.
from the all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace dept.
54mc writes "The Houston Police Department was filmed testing an unmanned aircraft in a secretive gathering on Wednesday. The media were not allowed into the event; however they were told that the aircraft would be used for 'mobility' and 'tactical' issues, and possibly even for writing traffic tickets. The aircraft has a wingspan of 10 feet and is said to cost from $30K to $1M. Pictures and video are available at the link." The article mentions that the craft was being operated by staff from a private firm called Insitu, Inc.. The device in the video looks like the firm's ScanEagle.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
said to cost from $30K to $1M (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
$30k sounds like a lowball number; I have a hard time believing you could get any kind of complete UAV system delivered and functioning for that price. (Maybe that's the marginal cost of 'one additional aircra
Re: (Score:2)
Big RC plane + video camera? 30k sounds reasonable to me.
I think the SC has ruled about using technology to spy on you. If it is normal (visual) it is ok. I think the cops got in trouble for using IR from a helicopter to spot marijuana green houses (abnormal heat signature). Since you don't see IR normally, you can't randomly use that to bust people. But visual cameras should be fine, since technically you could put a human up in a plane and do the same thing, only less efficiently and at a greater cos
Re:said to cost from $30K to $1M (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just curious. Is there anything that the state could do in "public" where you would finally say, "that's enough"? Apparently continuous, permanent, ever-present surveillance doesn't seem to bother you. How about in order to move from city block to city block you have to stop and present yourself for a full-body search, fingerprint, retinal scan, and DNA sample? Would you still say, "don't like it, just stay home"? I hope you would - and if so, there must be a line somewhere between the two. Where would you draw that line? And does it seem so radical to you that some of us may choose to draw that line closer to protecting privacy and freedom of movement than you might?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except it's not called stalking when the police does it. It's called 'an ongoing investigation'.
As someone who has built similar devices (Score:3, Insightful)
For 30k (or 10k if you don't get ripped off), you can build an aircraft that relies on GPS + digital compass with a built in map for navigation, uses sonar for handling weaknesses in the map (e.g. the map didn't mention this aircraft just in front of me), and stores/transmits pictures (over 3G).
However, if you want to have onboard video processing then things start getting expensive very fast. A processor and graphics card powerful enough to do image processing is ve
It writes traffic tickets? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
-b.
Nothing to read here ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if they truly can purchase a UAV for $30k, you'll see these things buzzing around EVERYWHERE. I don't doubt that if purchased and deployed in quantity, you could purchase and operate a UAV for the fraction of the cost of a patrol car.
Earlier in the year, I got to get up clo
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody"? You must not have seen KDawson's earlier posts, or else you would not be making such sweeping generalizations.
You and I (and him, of course) can use anything we want, but if the police look into using anything other than horses to chase suspects, or magnifying glass to investigate crimes, well, that's an alarming new development with grave priv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A difference (Score:5, Insightful)
These things will just fly around and look at everyone, hoping to catch you with your pants down. Later they will just record every move everyone makes, regardless of any suspicion. Do you want that? I don't. Unless I'm under active court supported suspicion, they don't have a right to 'follow' me around, 'just in case'.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They do if one of these things collides with their Piper Cub or the 737 they are riding on.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ScanEagle UAV has a maximum takeoff weight of 37.9lb, cruises at 56mph, and can carry up to 2 gallons of fuel. I think our buildings are safe.
That's quite a spread... (Score:2)
Wow, a million may buy from 1 to 33 of these birds... Very specific.
Cost? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
rj
Local law enforcement (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
SkyTag (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/tracker.shtml [thinkgeek.com]
Re:SkyTag (Score:4, Interesting)
What would be interesting is somebody homebrewing an EMP cannon and tracking system, then shooting these UAVs down when they cross a property line, then suing the city/county/state for putting them in the air over private property. Bound to kick up taxes in that neighborhood. Would a suit based on the assumption that an overflight by a UAV be considered a warrantless search work against the authorities? Would the city/county/state arrest the property owner for 'destruction of government property', 'obstructing justice', or 'interfering with a criminal investigation' even if there is no clear-cut 'crimes' being committed and no warrants issued at the time of the overflight?
Hmmmmmmmmmm. I think I'll head down to Radio Shack...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What would be interesting is somebody homebrewing an EMP cannon and tracking system, then shooting these UAVs down when they cross a property line, then suing the city/county/state for putting them in the air over private property.
You probably don't own the air or mineral rights to your land.
In other words, you don't own the air over your property.
So unless they're harrassing you, I doubt there is much you can sue for.
Would a suit based on the assumption that an overflight by a UAV be considered a warrantless search work against the authorities?
Maybe...
OTOH, Police don't need a warrant to look at things that are in "plain sight"... which is a somewhat flexible concept. Either way, fscking around with their UAV would definitely be destruction of gov't property.
Eyes on the ground (Score:2)
I for one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Enemies Foreign and Domestic (Score:3, Interesting)
The STU [Special Training Unit] had its own single-engine Piper Lance, and had obtained a BigEye surveillance pod for it. The BigEye was a gyro-stabilized combination video camera for daytime use, and infra-red camera for night use. An operator in the plane could put the camera's cursor mark on a stationary or moving ground target and the camera would lock on to it even as the plane circled high above, out of sight and sound of its quarry.
The extensive use of light planes was a tradition in the ATF going back decades; from the time when the "revenue agents" had flown them to spot bootleg liquor stills from the air. These pilot-qualified agents bragged that for them ATF stood for 'agents that fly'. The numerous flying special agents and ATF light planes often permitted them to reach the scenes of federal crimes involving illegal firearms or explosives before any other agencies. Any one-horse Podunk town with a dirt landing strip nearby could usually have ATF agents on the ground in a few hours at most. The ATF was independently air-mobile to a greater degree than most other agencies at the light plane end of the aviation spectrum.
After a brief familiarization period with the BigEye Malvone gave his air team the addresses of a dozen senior government officials who were in a position to help the STU. They hit pay dirt on a Sunday morning in June when the Piper was flying lazy eights over Fairfax County Virginia, and they noticed activity at the estate of Deputy AG Paul Wilson. A Mercedes arrived with a young couple who turned out to be Wilson's daughter and son-in-law. Mrs. Wilson then left with them to attend church services.
Soon after the driveway's automatic gate closed behind the Mercedes, Paul Wilson had appeared in a bathrobe on the back patio of the mansion by the swimming pool, accompanied by someone else. The stabilized zoom lens of the Big Eye then recorded in intimate detail the white-haired senior federal official and a black-haired girl playing in the Jacuzzi, with no detail left to the imagination for the next fifteen minutes. Upon further investigation the girl had turned out to be the 16 year old daughter of the Wilson's Costa Rican housekeeper, who had taken the day off.
Malvone was smiling broadly at the memory. "As soon as I saw that tape I knew we'd own Wilson, we'd have him in our pocket. When the time comes he's going to go to bat for us, big time, and we'll get the Special Projects Division approved."
"The FBI's going to fight it. They'll never let ATF have a new division with that much power."
"That's where you're wrong Joe, the STU or SPD or what ever we end up calling it is going to be seen as a dirty outfit for dirty jobs, and the FBI won't want any part of it. If the SPD falls on its face, the stink won't rub off on them. They'll be glad to let the ATF have it, and let the ATF take the hit if things go wrong. By the time they figure out what's really going on, the Special Projects Division will be too big for them to stop."
Big Brother comes cheap (Score:3, Insightful)
The price (Score:4, Informative)
They've been making and selling these for years and know darn well what they cost.
The company's capabilities are impressive. One of their first products flew across the Atlantic, in 27 hours using 1.5 gallons of gas. Any model plane builder I know would have real trouble doing the same.
Several other posters have complained about the cost. A typical remark concerns how many traffic tickets it takes to pay for the drone. At 30k, the drone costs less than a fully equipped patrol car.
Take a lesson from OCP (Score:2)
For starters they must make sure they included a classified fourth directive regarding action against company executives. It is vitally important that the Insitu management can still drive there porches to work without worrying about niggling details like speeding tickets.
lies right off the top ... (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
It's not even off the ground yet (!) and the bullshitting has already started.
The wind blew, the crap flew, and for days the vision was bad.
Re:That's a lot of traffic tickets... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I know the perfect defence (Score:5, Insightful)
What an intelligent suggestion... and one that shows your comprehensive knowledge of history! Why, if only the citizens of the USSR had known, they could have just changed the law rather than running from the gulag! Same goes for the citizens of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and even the United States under slavery. What were those people thinking, rebelling against slavery, running away from their legal owners, protesting the laws by violating them? They should have just changed the law, not broken it!
Yes, you really do seem to understand this. I applaud your pure insight. When an unjust law exists, it is our responsibility to obey it!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Today. Will it always be? Or will we install constant surveillance, which will then be used by future governments, which may or may not be as good as this one?
Re:I know the perfect defence (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Emphasis Mine!
You sir, are a fool and will kill someone some day! You're only fooling yourself!
Re:I know the perfect defence (Score:4, Insightful)
...and you've never seen the Autobahn at its best. No speed limit, and it WORKS. Why? Drivers who want to KEEP that lack of a speed limit driving at high rates in a usually logical manner.
I've seen it in motion. Fraggin' beautiful.
Parent
Re:I know the perfect defence (Score:4, Informative)
There is roughly half of the autobahn with speed limits, and two third of the accident occurs in section with speed limits.[1]
This has to be considered with knowing that the speed limits in place for the autobahn are in places supposed to be more dangerous.
Also, variable speed limits are to be seriously considered with traffic (if you're alone, go ahead break the speed, when there is someone else, though it's a different matter).[2]
What might spread the legend, is that highway in Europe (except maybe UK, and I do not know how it is for the rest of the world) are safer, in every possible ways (per road trip, per kilometer), than other roads (especially city roads).
So an highway without speed limits, the autobahn, is safer than pretty much every other roads, except highway with speed limits.
Though, be aware that even in Europe, the autobahn is often used as a point without mentioning its accident rate compared to other european highway with speed limits, but instead compared to the national rates.
[1]http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2201624,00.html
[2]http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Print/5F01DD9F62A2282C8525733A006D4BEA
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, the posted speed limits are set low enough that even poor drivers are relatively harmless to others. A skilled driver will be able to drive faster than the speed limit without endangering anybody.
That means that poor drivers should not drive faster than the speed limit, because they would be endangering others.
Another thing is, if everyone is going 15 mph above the limit and there's one guy who insists on going exactly the limit, that person is creating a safety hazard as everyone tries to pass him.
That means that therefore a poor driver, who can't safely drive faster than the speed limit now has two choices:
Re:I know the perfect defence (Score:4, Insightful)
It's well known that excessive speed differentials create dangerous conditions. That's why freeways have minimum speed limits and why failure to yield right of way is seriously enforced in some areas. A strong argument could be made that safety hazards created by excessively slow drivers are just as much the government's responsibility as anyone else. They're the ones setting deliberately slow speed limits that encourage drivers to ignore posted speeds and they're the one's supporting low standards of driver competence in their licensing policies. Where uniform speeds are driven, whether or not they correlate to posted speeds, driving is relatively safer. Raising speed limits, therefore, can have a beneficial effect on safety in some cases.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A much more obvious example is traffic lights. Anyone remember the stories of cities reducing the time of yellow lights after they installed red light enforcement cameras?
Re: (Score:2)
And lying about a supposed FAA NOTAM restricting flight in the area is very unlikely to win them any friends in Washington.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they even informed the FAA, as required:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/ [faa.gov]
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm [gpo.gov]
[...] the applicant must state the intended use for the UAS and provide sufficient information to satisfy the FAA that the aircraft can be operated safely. The time or number of flights mu
Re: (Score:2)
Hope they did it in the vicinity of a GA airport or something, so there'll be good grounds for a complaint. It won't shut them down completely, I'm sure, but it'll certainly slow them down quite a bit and put the proverbial red tape noose around their necks.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)