Honeywell To Sell Miami-Dade Police a Surveillance Drone 253
AHuxley writes "The Miami-Dade Police Department recently finalized a deal to buy a 20-pound drone from defense firm Honeywell. The drone can fly for 40 minutes, reach heights of 10,500 feet and cruise in the air at 46 miles an hour. As the Miami-Dade Police Department has recently made a lot of budget cuts, the funding may have come from a federal grant. An eye in the sky like over Iraq and Afghanistan may soon be looking down over South Florida 'to keep people safe.' Honeywell has applied to the FAA for clearance to fly the drone in urban areas."
Important question (Score:3)
TASER (Re: Important question) (Score:2)
Does it come with missiles?
For police use, a TASER would be a better idea. A quadrotor drone equipped with a TASER would be very useful to police. Once you've identified a perp using gyrostabilized telescopic video cameras invisibly from 1000's of feet in the air, you can wait until the perp is alone, then swoop in and stun the perp while a patrol car is called in with the GPS coordinates to take him in.
Hilarity (read police atrocity) ensues
Re:Important question (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like the Spyder III Arctic might work.
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Honestly, I hope they do.
Why? The police are merely enforcing the laws and protect human rights from thieves, murderers, et cetera. An eye-in-the-sky helps them complete that mission. If you are think there are some laws that are too onerous, then modify the law not the enforcement.
NBC is also guilty of doctoring a video showing a Black man carrying a rifle, to make it appear that it was "white racists" who want to "execute the president". Woah. First class propaganda.
http://www.google.com/se [google.com]
Re:Important question (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not too familiar with the Miami-Dade police department, or indeed with police in general, are you?
Re:Important question (Score:5, Insightful)
Or worst he is one. It really is hard to maintain perspective when your paycheck requires you to have your head so far up your own ass that you can't see how little of what you do actually makes a difference, and how much of it is needlessly harming other people for little reason more than supporting the prison-industrial complex and auto insurance companies.
Re:Important question (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. I was held by Homeland Gestapo when I refused to let them search my car's trunk w/o a warrant. They made me stand in the hot Texas sun for over an hour.
BUT as I said in my original message: If you are think there are some laws that are too onerous, then modify the law rather than weaken the enforcement. The police are just doing what the politicians told them to do (via laws); it's the politicians you need to denigrate and force them to change the law (or else fire them). In my specific case I'd like to see laws put in place that provide mandatory jailtime for Homeland Security/police when they perform unconstitutional, warrantless searches.
But in the case of the drone, if you steal or murder in plain view of..... well everyone..... then you deserve to get arrested.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Important question (Score:5, Insightful)
The police are just doing what the politicians told them to do
You know who else was just doing what the politicians told them to do? Nazis. That excuse didn't work then, it shouldn't work now.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever actually tried telling that to someone who works for the so called "justice system"? It is amazing how fundamentally against understanding that point some people are.
However, I think you hit the nail right between the eyes.
Re:Important question (Score:5, Insightful)
I've yet to see a govt. or law enforcement entity not try to extend on any powers given to them yet. They now use RICO to go after non-organized crimes. Remember when they needed warrants for most any cause? That's rapidly disappearing.
I see a very short leap in logic to, "if we had the eye in the sky armed, we could disable criminals as they moved about..".
Also how about the next step..."well, if the public doesn't mind be watched by a few drones, we could also see things better and cover wider area, if we just set up cameras everywhere in the city, much like England does".
Any tool they have, can and often will be abused. Tasers? Seemed like a good idea, to have a non-lethal force weapon...not as much gun play. However, look at the overuse of tasers these days on people and situations that just do not call for that level of force.
I'm for heavily questioning any new *tool* given to the police...they really need to justify it in a huge way because of the potential for it to be abused by them on less than criminal public activities.
This thing sound something like an unmanned Blue Thunder.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>"...cameras everywhere in the city, much like England does".
You're on a public street. You have no expectation of privacy in that area, so I see no reason to oppose it. You shouldn't be doing things where you might be seen by a cop's eyes (either directly or via electronic feed). - And remember: We the people now have the ability to turn it around, and videocam anything the cops are doing, and upload those vids to youtube to embarrass those cops who act like gestapo.
Re:Important question (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. I believe in the no expectation of privacy when on a public space to the extent of it being available only to human eyes. It is a different thing, however, to have that extrapolated to being stored on tape or whatever media, computer enhanced, computer analyzed...and kept for long periods of time to be viewed by any number of people (some in power) over any length of time. Information used this way to find patterns in your life apart from this one area (tracking your movements actions, etc).
I don't mind if John Q Public or Jane P. Officer seems me walking down the street, and remembers it as long as they please. But I don't want them following me around with a camera, recording my movements, etc. Don't put me under observations UNTIL I am under suspicion for criminal activity.
That's the way it is supposed to work, not just using tech to set out a huge drag net to try to catch a criminal and scooping up info on innocent people in the process.
What if there is a murder somewhere? If you're filmed or somehow tracked to be in the area at that time, guess what? You're automatically a suspect. No problem with that since your innocent? I guess that's ok...since no one has ever been wrongly accused, convicted and incarcerated/executed before.
Frankly, I don't want my name on list of potentials which will happen with expanded observation and tracking.
And as for turning the camera on those in power? Have you seen the recent posts on /. about this? I think it is in Penn. where people trying to film/record the cops in action have actually been convicted of illegal wiretapping and have felony charges (maybe even convictions).
I think that those in govt and law enforcement SHOULD be the ones under constant surveillance...since they have so much power over the general public. The general public, however, should have the right to as much privacy as possible, and be left alone as much as possible.
That last part, I would think...is something our founding fathers would support and likely assumed would be the way we lived on after they passed.
Re: (Score:3)
You're on a public street. You have no expectation of privacy in that area
How about your back yard? Or the window of your back porch? Is there privacy there, or do we have to lock ourselves in a basement now?
Re: (Score:3)
You refer to "the law", I see only "the laws written by the illegitimate organization which likes to call itself my government". I can write things and call them "laws" too. The only difference is, I haven't duped a bunch of thugs into enforcing my will.
I really don't believe in an individuals ability to really change the law. I don't believe that this organization, which you may refer to as "the government" if you like, represents the people, or even particularly has our best interests at heart.
I see them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooops. I'm sorry about that last NBC bit.
That cut-n-paste was meant for another post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And you expect anyone trying to take out a predator drone with a home made rocket is going to obey those "laws", while planning to destroy "public property"? What fantasy world do you live in.
Re:Important question (Score:5, Funny)
40 minutes (Score:3)
Re:40 minutes (Score:4, Interesting)
doesn't sound like a very long time, do they launch it with an elastic band or something ?
That was my observation too. Also, what is the point of being able to go to 10,500 feet if you only have a 40 min. of flight time?
Re: (Score:3)
You can then extend that to 40 minutes and ~26 seconds before violently crashing the drone at about 250 meters per second.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I made some miscalculations. That's only the vertical velocity if it were flying horizontal at that height.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ehh, no joke, the most dangerous neighborhoods in Miami are right around police HQ. And the courts. It's kind of sad.
Maybe Fergie needs to be made aware of this so she can raise awareness.
Watch out Dexter (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just what the corrupt MIA police dept needs (Score:4, Informative)
Assault on a Police officer with a door knob. Yeah you read that right told Miami police to pound sand at 3 AM after they woke me up talking about a dead body smell (was the refig in the apartment next door which was off and had gone bad) with no warrant. Closed the door and got my ass handed to me when the door knob hit the officer and he claimed I assulted him. Spent the night / next day in MIA prison waiting for bail facing 7 years for assault, & resisting arrest.
fuck miami, and 'the man' that live there! sorry had to be said.
Re:Just what the corrupt MIA police dept needs (Score:4, Funny)
Meh, that's nothing: During street protests, it's not uncommon for people to be arrested for assaulting a police officer's knee with their groin.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could shoot crackheads. *pew* *pew*!
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious troll is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
oh wait, it's not that time in the thread yet?...
Re:Just what the corrupt MIA police dept needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, guess what. Even if I'm a total ass-hat to the police, unless I actually put them in danger I don't deserve any legal repercussions for it, let alone being threatened with years in prison. The OP was completely within his rights to close the door on the police officers, unless he slammed it as hard as possible with no warning and the intention to cause harm I don't see how he should possibly be charged with anything.
Re: (Score:2)
While the reaction to the door slamming seems certainly overzealous, I agree with the FP to this one. Being an asshat generally reaps likewise behavior. I would hope any court would find closing a door, however abruptly, to not be assault though.
BTW, knocking on a door does not require a warrant. If the story is true, the police were doing their due diligence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Being an asshat is not illegal. Arresting someone on false charges is not "likewise behavior", it's illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
I never asked them to risk their lives for me. I also happen to know what kind of entitlement programs they have working in their favor (which I never asked for the privilege of paying for either). Retirement after 20 years of work? Making gobs of overtime pay for standing around doing what a flag man could do on details (yah I live in MA), getting an hour and a half added to their already inflated time sheets for every bogus traffic ticket they write....
all for what? So they can catch the occasional bad gu
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet if you had just cooperated you'd have been back in your safe warm bed in no time and probably not even remembered the incident the next day.
This is not a repeat from 1938.
Re:Just what the corrupt MIA police dept needs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
No, people who quote Sun Tzu are almost always speaking Chinese.
Probably not. Most people obsessed enough to spew out-of-context Sun Tzu quotes are adolescent Western gamers.
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't think Sun Tzu ever spoke in English....
Aside, I've wanted a copy of The Art of War in the original Chinese for a while now, though I can't read it. If I want to read it that bad, I'll have to learn the language; I don't want to read a bunch of bullshit interpretation (translation is hard) just so I can say "oh, I've read The Art of War, 'cause I'm cool." I read stuff like that for understanding, not for the ability to quote things and shout loudly.
I can never find the original... that and M
Re: (Score:2)
Um.... you think seeing a gun is probable cause to search without a warrant?
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of someone brandishing it, or in the case of it matching one reported stolen and reported as being in the location where it's seen, or any number of similar situations, yes. The mere presence of a gun, by itself, without any sort of alarming context
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO, okay, my hackles are down. I just read you sig :)
I admin, I'm a bit on edge right now. I'm working to get open carry passed in my state, and have been going back-and-forth with opponents for a couple of weeks now, sometimes on film. It's hard to turn off.
Re: (Score:2)
right so I just should have let them come into the wrong house when they asked for no reason because they wanted to?
Maybe in Russia but here in the US there is a thing called a warrant. Back under your bridge troll.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't wait to get a warrant to find out if you're right that there's a dead body on the other side of the door, as phoned in by someone else. You get a warrant to search the house for evidence. You don't need a warrant to find out if you're actually on the scene of a crime (in the dead-body-lying-there sense). You need a warrant if something about that scene tells you you actually need to check out the house for evidence of some sort. It only takes a cop a moment to r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If your nose tells you that there might be a dead body rotting, you don't need a warrant - no more than seeing a gun or hearing a scream. Of course, you know that, and you're just adding a little Troll spice to your story.
Oh yes you do. The Supreme Court in particular has stated very clearly that the home has maximum protection from being searched without a warrant and without consent. Unlike, say, a vehicle stop, a home is not likely to skip the jurisdiction. What the police are supposed to do if they have probable cause for a search of the home but do not have the consent of the owner for a search is to possibly leave an officer there to watch the place to make sure that what they're looking for doesn't move, then get a wa
Hackers' Dream Come True (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the odds of them not reusing the key?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's random and software generated? 100%.
Tell that to Sony.
This is Florida (Score:2)
So expect the drone to be shot down around minute 4 in the test flight. Dibs on the fallen cameras and servos! Next invasive technology, this one is compromised.
T-Hawk (Score:5, Informative)
Presaged by George Lucas (Re:T-Hawk) (Score:2)
No wonder Gibson and Stross quip that we're living in the sci-fi future already. This was in Empire Strikes Back [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
One possible use for it... (Score:3)
I'm guessing one use will be following criminals from the air to relay positions. That, and keeping track of a car on a protracted chase, although from what I read, this bird doesn't have that long a radius and run time compared to a helicopter. I wonder if it is cheaper to spin something like this up than get the police in the air, so that is one reason this is being looked into.
Re:One possible use for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Helicopter flying hours are very expensive, which is why even in wartime they aren't used for long loiter missions.
Get the toy then get permission to fly it? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Honeywell has applied to the FAA for clearance to fly the drone in urban areas. This has never been allowed before, but if it does happen, the Miami-Dade Police Department will be the first police agency in the US to use the technology."
Re: (Score:2)
"finalized a deal" sounds like it has been sold.
Sensor payload? (Score:4, Informative)
I am less worried about flight duration than the sensor payload that Honeywell is installing for Miami-Dade. IR, Thermographic, NightVision, and HD cameras at the very least to make the drone "useful". TFA only mentions "cameras" not what type.
This statement by police says it all. "It gives us a good opportunity to have an eye up there. Not a surveilling eye, not a spying eye. Let's make the distinction. A surveilling eye to help us to do the things we need to do, honestly, to keep people safe," said Miami-Dade Police Director James Loftus.
Hmm. "Not a surveilling eye," then "A surveilling eye to help us..." Maybe a typo, but still telling.
We knew this was coming. http://news.cnet.com/Drone-aircraft-may-prowl-U.S.-skies/2100-11746_3-6055658.html [cnet.com]
Time to start-up my own residential sheilding supply and installation company. Any investors interested?
Please say, "NO" (Score:5, Interesting)
I can only hope the FAA is smart enough (funny joke there) to say no. The risk to other aircraft can not possibly be justified. And given that this would likely trigger as a "pop up" means that the pilot and passengers this drone may murder would likely be "at fault." - even if hit from the rear.
There is absolutely nothing safe about having an idiot cop with a remote control aircraft mixing with air traffic which has can not see and avoid - which is a mandate of the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the FAAs approach to regulation, they will be allowed. Only when the first drone causes a fatal accident will the decision be reversed. If a significant number of drones are deployed before the first fatal accident, the FAA will yield to the "significant negative economic impact" of a complete ban and we'll be stuck with them forever.
Re: (Score:3)
You severely underestimate the PITA it is to get FAA certifications in general,
A willing DER and a stack of blank 8110 forms. I've seen it far too many times.
time for this to figure in CSI:M?? (Score:2)
place your bets everybody as to exactly how this gets worked into one or more CSI episodes
1 the drone is hijacked: 30 to 1
2 the drone crashes on somebody: 600 to 1
3 a primary character takes the controls of a drone for %reason%: 10 to 1
any takers??
(offer void in any jurisdiction using US Dollars as currency or funds convertible to same)
Cheap version of a helicopter (Score:2)
Surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
The summary insinuates that this drone will be circling the skies watching the citizens below, big-brother style. But with 40 minutes flight time (and every flight would cost money) it's far more likely this would be used to track fleeing suspects, as a cheaper alternative to a helicopter.
A solar-powered plane that can stay up for days at a time, or a blimp with cameras, would be much more threatening to our privacy. If the police want me bad enough to send a drone up to track my movements, then the drone is probably the least of my worries.
Re:Surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
it's far more likely this would be used to track fleeing suspects
On what? A moped? Its got a (reported) top speed of 42 mph... It seems like a waste of money to me.
The only sensible use seems to be equipping it with FLIR and using it to find suspects who are hiding outdoors. Even though SCOTUS has ruled that it is unconstitutional to use FLIR for fly-over searches (think indoor marijuana grow operations), I suspect that this is an ulterior motive behind the purchase. In which case, you should be concerned about your privacy because these FLIR cameras can literally peer into your bedroom.
...swarm of solar plains... (Score:2)
Once the laws have passed, then you get the swarm of solar plains...
Now that would be interesting...
In a related story, the state legislature... (Score:2)
Re:In a related story, the state legislature... (Score:4, Interesting)
has introduced a bill the have the name of the state changed from Florida to Oceania.
The name of the State has always been Oceania.
Oblig. (Score:2)
Our police department just got a radio controlled drone and the damn thing doesn't even have a Visual Basic interface to control it!
Well you know,
*Puts on sunglasses*
There's no use to drone on about it all day.
YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See what I did there, 2 CSI memes in one post, I rock.
Does it make it too easy? (Score:2)
For example if you're a suspicious character, it's considered OK if a law enforcement surveillance team stealthily follows you everywhere you go for a week, without your knowledge, meticulously recording everything (at great expense). However, it's considered NOT OK to
Re:Does it make it too easy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, but I find the contrast confusing... Is it simply the case that surveillance is OK provided it's difficult? If that's the case, why do we allow helicopters at all? Or in the case of manned surveillance, why are the police allowed to use radios? Shouldn't they have to use call boxes? Either we're OK with the concept, or we're not.
The difference is that "difficult" surveillance can't be mounted on a massive scale - they actually have to be frugal in its use. They can't go around tracking everyone; they have to be pretty sure they have the right people to follow before committing the resources to it.
"Easy" surveillance OTOH, can be used to simply monitor everyone. Well, actually, that should read "will" instead of "can". It's basically Murphy's law as applied to surveillance: if the opportunity exists to misuse a law or technology, it will be misused. Surveilling everyone is way easier than bothering with all that pesky "probable cause" nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that "difficult" surveillance can't be mounted on a massive scale - they actually have to be frugal in its use.
So moving to following someone in a car (from being on foot or on a horse) was OK because it was still "difficult." Then moving to cars with radios was OK because it was still "difficult." Then moving to cell phones and encrypted radios was OK because it was still "difficult"... Then helicopters was OK because it was still "difficult"... You see my point? Suddenly now we're
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I'm pretty sure they started the British installation with one camera, as well.
We should start a pool (Score:2)
How long before they crash it? Put me down for 8 months.
Trust (Score:3)
Considering the proximity of several very busy airports there has to be an awful lot of trust in allowing drones in the area. Miami International Airport among others is right in the center of Miami. We could get a huge oops type of event and it is so hard getting those bodies out of the Everglades.
Again using technology to solve social problems (Score:3)
Every time a new gee-whiz technology is created, it is soon used to solve social problems. In Great Britain millions of surveillance camera have failed to dent crime rates [wordpress.com], in spite of a few high-profile successes.
In education, which is even more fad-driven than crime fighting, deployment of educational tv, audio tapes, laptop computer and other gizmos have failed to engage turned-off students. iPads are the latest gadget. [nytimes.com]. I expect they will be another expensive fiasco.
There is no substitute for engaged teachers and parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They make all sorts of stuff; my furnace thermostat is a Honeywell.
Right now I'm none to happy with them. A few friends of mine worked at their Springfield plant, now they're out of work because Honeywell shut it down and moved its operations to Mexico where workers and the environment are easier to exploit. Maybe they'll move back if the CEO gets gunned down or kidnapped by drug gangs.
It would serve the bastard right.
Re:people worried about surveillance in public spa (Score:5, Insightful)
Your screed assumes that the public has the same access to all these cameras as the police.
The reality of the situation is a bit murkier.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
pick ten random people on the street
most will have cell phones
most of those cell phones will have cameras
in fact, most will be turned on, pointed at the police, should they see the police do something abusive
and that video will be on youtube 10 minutes later, and on the evening news by the 6 pm broadcast
that's reality
now wake up
Re: (Score:3)
in fact, most will be turned on, pointed at the police, should they see the police do something abusive
Except in the increasing number of places where recording the cops is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
than that is abusive law which should clearly be overturned
nevermind the fact that even in severely draconian societies, video will find a way out and work against the state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And then those people will be arrested and sent to prison for wiretapping the police. It is happening.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
that is unjust, and should be stopped
but if you, or the government, believes it will be able to keep the lid on abuse in a world where every citizen has a camera, both you and the government are in for a nasty surprise
so it is GOOD cameras are everywhere, IN THE HANDS OF THE CITIZENS
Re: (Score:2)
how are the cops going to round up 10 cell phones from 10 different people in 10 different locations, most of whom aren't around by the time the cops even notice
you have some sort of strange faith in the ability of the state to keep the lid on things
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right private cameras are there. The cops have to jump through additional hoops to get the footage. If a business owner was aware of his (and his fellow citizens' rights) he'd tell the cops to get a warrant. Being that even public video footage isn't even worth watching [lazylightning.org] to prosecute most crime [lazylightning.org] because there is so much of it to go through, I'm guessing they'd ignore it for most crime unless it was super serious.
But hey, if the drone is flying they probably have someone watching the thing during its 40
Re: (Score:2)
if there is crime going on, its good it is being caught if before the drone it wouldn't be caught
i don't understand a mentality that says society is better when less crime is being punished
now if you mean by crime things which shouldn't be a crime, like smoking a joint or prostitution, i agree with you. and society is slowing changing in that regard: marijuana will soon be legal in the usa, and prostitution should be made legal, and many people will agitate for this positive change on our society
but never,
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that marijuana and prostitution are the only to crimes which are leading to the most ridiculous prison population in the world you're wrong. These are crimes which definitely need to be prosecuted but not require jail time and thus tax dollars to pay for the individual to be incarcerated.
The drone isn't going to find important crimes in 40 minute flights. It's going to find every day run of the mill crime which honestly isn't worth the cost of operating this drone.
Re: (Score:2)
anything that leads to better enforcement of laws is good
anything that leads to more sane laws is good
but in no world is less enforcement of laws a good thing
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah we should put devices in cars that automatically print out tickets the very second you break the speed limit.....I mean, 100% enforcement of laws is the best scenario according to you... /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
no, this merely means the speed laws are unjust and need to be more sane. did you actually read what i wrote?
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is not one of cameras. The issue is of pervasiveness and data management.
There being a camera on every street corner isn't that big of a privacy issue if every one of those feeds into a separate tape deck for a convenience store that gets reused every two weeks when they don't get robbed. No one looks at that video. If something interesting happens on the corner, someone might think to get a warrant for it and search through it for something interesting, but that's about it.
But network them, put t
Re: (Score:2)
The police ARE gang activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Honeywell is a huge company. Part of what it does is defense. I used to work for Honeywell, for a classified project under a DoD contract. So, yes, it does defense.