VA Governor Wants Military Drones For Police 183
New submitter Screen404-O writes "During a radio interview, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell suggested that using unmanned drones to assist police would be 'great' and 'the right thing to do.' 'Increased safety and reduced manpower are among the reasons the U.S. military and intelligence community use drones on the battlefield, which is why it should be considered in Virginia, he says. ... McDonnell added Tuesday it will prove important to ensure the state maintains Americans' civil liberties, such as privacy, if it adds drones to its law enforcement arsenal.' Is this the next step toward militarizing our law enforcement agencies? How exactly can they ensure our privacy, when even the Air Force can't?"
From this Governor (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From this Governor (Score:5, Interesting)
. "Not 'Top of the list' important", McDonnell continued, "but up there with other priorities I share with the VA GOP, like the environment, public education, and a woman's right to choose."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that an official statement from the Governor's office?
Re:From this Governor (Score:4, Insightful)
The first cunt we fly one of these things up should be the Governor himself.
Which party again? (Score:3)
Hey, where are all the Republican trolls who like to claim that party affiliation only gets omitted when a Democrat does something bad? This guy's not just a Republican, but as right-leaning as they come. I guess all those GOPers will have to admit that they were full of it? Hahaha, as if.
And for the record, I couldn't care less which party he's from, and I happen to agree with him on this issue. I've got no problem with the government using unmanned drones to handle tasks previously performed by men in
Re: (Score:2)
Better be ready with your mist nets.
Re: (Score:2)
With insurance so high it would be impossible to afford coverage for errant drones falling from the sky. Mist nets will be the only way the public will be able to protect itself. Prepare to see helium place on the list of forbidden substances.
Sounds as if (Score:2)
Sounds as if some of the republicans want them in place now, as the economic collapse they have been initiated to gain control of the White House seems to have accelerated faster than they expected it to. Seems as if things were a lot closer to the edge than they thought. Wonder if the drone plants in Mississippi will have sufficient capacity to meet the demand necessary to protect the entire 1%. What happens when the 99% find out? It pretty clear that Keynes and Krugman are right. Wonder if there will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me correct your English to something more accurate, just replace Republican in your post with Repubmocrat. There is no important differences in the parties and you can be sure of several of your assumed buddies, the Dems voting for it too. It always feels like we've lost the planet when I see poor suckers arguing over Republican/Democrat issues instead of uniting to rid ourselves of what is really a one party dictatorship masquerading as two opposing sides.
Papers please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Papers please (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow the Iranian lead: jam the GPS, land it in a field, and reprogram "home". They don't "have the manpower" to track you down, do they?
For years you Americans have been saying that you can't outgun the military because they have gunships and drones. Well fuck man, they're going to just hand over drones to use as you see fit.
Balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from the kinds of politicians they are electing these days, a very, very long time. But no matter, the security and future of their citizens has been given the Virginia State Contract to a drone manufacturer on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
Re:Papers please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
#Other states
I'd agree.
#Virginia
Traffic Enforcement. If you report a rape, you might as well play Monopoly to pass the time. If you report a guy in a red sport compact doing 5 over, the VSP practically teleport there.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay well this is the cops, but they'll only use it in pursuit of criminals. [slashdot.org]
Promise.
Trying to invoke paranoia? (Score:2)
Of course they don't want to use the drones to assassinate American citizens. They just want to arrest American terro er... I mean criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
You make a joke but as someone who has lived in Virginia there are signs everywhere that say 'speed limit enforced by aircraft' [alienspouse.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's not normally considered to mean "violators will be stopped with hellfire missiles", although apparently nobody has told the VA governor this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont like being spied on any more than the rest of us, but lets not pretend that using a unmanned plane to do the same job as a manned helicopter is the same thing as shooting down speeders with a missile
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not pretend that the police will restrict their use only to situations where they would have used a helicopter. You really think the point of these things is to save money? You really think police departments are going to sell their helicopters? Think again. Think Tasers. They were only supposed to be used in situations where before they would have used a firearm. Instead they are used to torture [wired.com] someone into compliance or just to torture someone for insulting them or disrespecting them in some way or
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's not normally considered to mean "violators will be stopped with hellfire missiles", although apparently nobody has told the VA governor this.
Well now you know, bring your anti-aircraft sams. Can't afford them? That's your problem. It's a brave new world of greed and fear of death from above for the poor. Which is you... yes you... if you ain't in the top 400 than you're poor and your life has no purpose other than to serve the glorious elite.
Re: (Score:2)
Mist Nets
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speeding tickets. Virginia is one of the few states to ban radar detectors. Plus their "reckless driving" stature comes with criminal misdemeanor charges and nice big fines.
Not to mention that 20 mph over posted speed limit or 80 mph gives you automatic reckless driving.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Its your mind. I know because I have to get up every morning and battle mine.
What about What I want? (Score:5, Insightful)
I want public Video cameras all over the VA governors mansion and private home.
He can have the drones as soon as he let's us install tons of cameras all over in his home that allow anyone to watch him.
If he is against it, what is he hiding?
Re: (Score:2)
I want video cameras peeking into his meetings with lobbyists, so that we can replay them again at his trial. Surely, someone might catch a stray packet or two, just by chance.
They just want some shiny new toys (Score:5, Insightful)
Cameras can do the same job, are much cheaper, don't need supervision and can be set up not to be intrusive. A policeman controlling a drone that's patrolling an area could just as well get on his bike and do the patrol himself.
Re:They just want some shiny new toys (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who works for a company that builds drones... you are absolutely correct.
They have a time and a place where they are useful, but there's a time and a place where they're NOT. I could maybe see them being useful along the border, where exists many miles of barren-ass desert (south) or frozen-ass tundra (north) that would be difficult for a human to patrol... but if you want a military-grade weapon walking your beat down the local Main Street, fuck right off.
If anything, more cops need to be out and about bolstering public image. Walk your beat (or ride a bike), help people and generally don't be a douche. You'll be amazed at what some sweet PR can do for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention fallen drone reclamation.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a time and a place where they are useful, but there's a time and a place where they're NOT. I could maybe see them being useful along the border
...which is should be a military patrol anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit and the Wrong thing to do. (Score:2)
This isn't a war. But some of the politicians seem dead set on making it one.
Hint, politicians: today it is not only quite possible, but not even that difficult to make a drone-killing missile in one's basement, complete with propeller- or heat-seeking electronics. And they'd never see it coming. ("Missile" might be misleading: it might be simpler and cheaper to make a self-guided ballistic projectile.)
I'm not suggesting that I would
Re:Bullshit and the Wrong thing to do. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are 2 big issues here that the politicians need to start considering, much more than they have been:
(1) The fact that a certain technology CAN be used, and might even represent monetary savings, is largely a different question that whether it SHOULD be used.
(2) That improved technology works both ways: not only do you have the ability to move surveillance to the sky, but also: civilians have drastically improved ability to bring it down. And strong motivation to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Clarification:
There are 2 big issues here that the politicians need to start considering, much more than they have been:
(1) The fact that a certain technology CAN be used, and might even represent monetary savings, is largely a different question that whether it SHOULD be used.
(2) That improved technology works both ways: not only do you have the ability to move surveillance to the sky, but also: civilians have drastically improved ability to bring it down. And strong motivation to do so.
Why is no one asking the question if this stuff actually makes communities safer? I don't think this particular kind of surveillance will stop murders or find missing children. This kind of surveillance will be used to look into peoples houses to find marijuana plants, or meth labs, or just to give people tickets.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why is no one asking the question if this stuff actually makes communities safer?"
Another good point. I would make that #3. And that brings up:
(4) Safety is not the end goal of all existence. You cannot make everything 100% safe without taking all the meaning and enjoyment out of life.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is no one asking the question if this stuff actually makes communities safer?"
Another good point. I would make that #3. And that brings up:
(4) Safety is not the end goal of all existence. You cannot make everything 100% safe without taking all the meaning and enjoyment out of life.
Not only that but safety for one group of people could put other groups of people in greater danger. For instance if conservative Christian families want to keep their children safe from homosexuality they ban homosexuality and use drones to spy on the communities sex lives in order to police and enforce.
This is the sort of stuff we will be dealing with. The conservative families would claim its to make them feel safer but it puts another group of people in danger of being arrested for who they are.
Re: (Score:2)
You are forgetting one important point. You are not a politician. A politician needs to be seen to be doing something to address issues that concern their constituents. Whether their actions will actually resolve the issues is beside the point. They just have to be able to tell the voters that they are taking action on their behalf.
I don't know if this politician has given any thought to the consequences of deploying these drones in his state or not. He may not care, or he may just have heard of a how suppo
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand. Republicans are doing their utmost to see that the government is entirely dysfunctional, so that they can sell what little of the public treasure and national patrimony there is left to each other. Don't worry though, you are just firmly drawn in on their Etch-A-Sketch.
Re: (Score:2)
What is up these politician's asses? Besides their heads, I mean.
This isn't a war. But some of the politicians seem dead set on making it one.
Hint, politicians: today it is not only quite possible, but not even that difficult to make a drone-killing missile in one's basement, complete with propeller- or heat-seeking electronics. And they'd never see it coming. ("Missile" might be misleading: it might be simpler and cheaper to make a self-guided ballistic projectile.)
I'm not suggesting that I would do that. I don't even have a basement. But you can count on the fact that somebody would.
They aren't fooling anyone with this drone crap. Why is it okay for the police to fly drones over our houses but it's not okay for us to fly drones over the police to monitor their activities at all times?
Why do the police get to use encryption, but if we try to use it then we are terrorists? Some stuff is none of LE business. When we are on our own property, in our own homes, and aren't hurting anyone else, they shouldn't be flying drones or wiretapping or trying to scan inside our houses with satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
"But some of the politicians seem dead set on making it one. "
You don't seem to understand. Republicans want the government completely ineffectual, chaotic, and misguided, since our attention will be turned away from the fact that they are busy selling it to each other.
Let's take a deep breath (Score:3)
I don't live in Virginia. I will say up front I do not the camel's nose to come under a tent in Virginia, nor any other state.
However, let's take a deep breath and ask how, specifically, unmanned aerial vehicles will help the mission of the Virginia police forces. And how and where, specifically, will they operate?
If the people of Virginia don't get a specific answer, then I think it's fair for them to deny the proposal on a variety of grounds. Without a specific mission in mind it is unlikely that drones will save money (they'd be just expensive new equipment with no clear purpose). Without a specific operational plan it is unlikely the drones will operate in a way compatible with FAA regulations and, oh yes, a little thing I call THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. [wikipedia.org]
However if one were to object without hearing the specific plan first, one could more easily be dismissed as alarmist.
I would even concede there is a remote possibility that a reasonable and effective police application of drones exists. None has not occurred to me so far.
Cost (Score:2)
What are they searching for? (Score:2)
That is the question we should be asking. We have a right to know what the police are hoping to find with this surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Valid uses of drones (Score:2, Insightful)
The main thing I could see them making sense for is replacing helicopters for following suspects if on a chase (a drone would be a lot cheaper and you could have a few engaged). But there are of other valid peaceful governmental uses of drones:
* Surveying the city. You could use them to get an idea of what areas of town needed more work than others. You could do weekly flyovers just to see if streetlights were out in an area. You could build up a highly detailed aerial map of your city/county/state and
Re: (Score:2)
The main thing I could see them making sense for is replacing helicopters for following suspects if on a chase (a drone would be a lot cheaper and you could have a few engaged). But there are of other valid peaceful governmental uses of drones:
* Surveying the city. You could use them to get an idea of what areas of town needed more work than others. You could do weekly flyovers just to see if streetlights were out in an area. You could build up a highly detailed aerial map of your city/county/state and then let the people make use of that data to make cool mapping products.
* Work in tandem with other sensors to get video on an area where needed ASAP. Video of traffic accidents moments after they occur (or any sudden drop in traffic speed). Video of an area where gunshot detectors picked up shots.
I don't at all understand the concern over drones, they are simply cameras that are more mobile than traditional surveillance cameras. Are people concerned with drones also concerned that police cars have cameras in them?
Obviously if you included weapons on the drones that's a whole different matter, but I've not heard anyone say they are considering weaponizing them.
It's only a matter of time before they claim the drones need weapons to keep people from destroying or jamming them.
Re: (Score:2)
If the people of Virginia don't get a specific answer, then I think it's fair for them to deny the proposal on a variety of grounds.
What do you mean by "the people of Virginia"? Don't forget: corporations are now people, too. And how, exactly, do they oppose this? After all, if they're against it, they must be hiding something, right?
It really is amazing how right the "tin foil hat people" have been all along. Equally amazing is how quickly the madness (i.e. the all-out assault on, and destruction of, the
Re: (Score:2)
The (Flying) End of Privacy (Score:2)
Threat to privacy? (Score:2)
What I want to know is how these drones are more of a threat to privacy than a manned helicopter flying around doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Off the top of my head ... (Score:2)
There could be many more of them per police officer (let alone police force) than is feasible for helicopters.
They're much smaller and more agile, allowing access to your daughter's hot tub^W^W^W^W more private areas.
They're much easier to make silent, thus enabling stealth surveillance.
They can operate 24/7/365 in aggregate.
They'd be in the hands of people who do things like this [wusa9.com].
Re: (Score:2)
There could be many more of them per police officer (let alone police force) than is feasible for helicopters.
They're much smaller and more agile, allowing access to your daughter's hot tub^W^W^W^W more private areas.
They're much easier to make silent, thus enabling stealth surveillance.
They can operate 24/7/365 in aggregate.
They'd be in the hands of people who do things like this [wusa9.com].
Each police officer could in theory operate thousands of drones all around the city. The drones could go from being large UAV's to toy airplane size, to insect size, to the size of dust particles, depending on how much money the police have and how drone is defined.
In practice the smallest drone would be nano-dust which is about the size of a flake of rice. This would be too expensive today but if mass produced by the police all around the country the price would go down to the point where we'd have a poli
How about micro drones? (Score:2)
What I want to know is how these drones are more of a threat to privacy than a manned helicopter flying around doing the same thing.
If you don't understand the privacy implications of UAVs, how about if they were made really small, smaller than birds? small like insect small, like fly small, and were spread by the tens of thousands throughout the city to pick up conversations, capture video, etc?
Spire said it right, this sort of thing scales ridiculously easily. The drones will get smaller, fly for longer, get smarter, and there will eventually be thousands of them swarming an area. Honestly if this doesn't disturb you then wait until n
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially, when so much of flight intelligence can be now downloaded to the cloud. In fully automated mode one of these things could go berserk as a result of a software bug and kill thousands before it's brought down. Does anyone have Lloyds of London's view on this?
new and improved speed traps... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would also boost new car sales, due to the reduction of used cars on the market.
Use manned aircraft instead. (Score:2)
If there is meat in the cockpit it's a non-issue, be it police meat or the hundreds of thousands of recce aircraft training sorties the US had back when we used RF and RB-series aircraft.
Meatless cockpits are scary, so let's use Virginia's current Bell 407s for everything instead.
i would rather... (Score:2, Interesting)
search and rescue have them
This affects access to news crews folks.... (Score:2)
With drones in the air, the access to crime scenes by news helicopters and planes will be a thing of the past. The neat thing about this issue is that the gov. can say "I didn't pass any laws restricting news access to sites, it was the feds!" since the FAA will have final determination regarding access to the airspace.
Niiiiice.
Re: (Score:2)
With drones in the air, the access to crime scenes by news helicopters and planes will be a thing of the past. The neat thing about this issue is that the gov. can say "I didn't pass any laws restricting news access to sites, it was the feds!" since the FAA will have final determination regarding access to the airspace.
Niiiiice.
They can use drones too.
Northrup Grumman (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the move or Northrop Grumman's corporate HQ to Virgina in 2010, but only after a bunch of "meetings" with McDonnel.
Nope, not a thing.
In fact, I am sure Grumman is not going to win any of these contracts.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/apr/26/grumgat26_20100426-184201-ar-156839/ [timesdispatch.com]
What is the rights difference between heli/drone? (Score:2)
Civil-liberties-wise, what exactly is the difference between a remotely-piloted drone and a helicopter?
I think it's a silly idea and not of much use, but I'm not seeing civil liberties implications here.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a constitutional right to EVERYTHING. The government can only limit those rights in the manner described by the constitution.
I repeat this time and time again, hopefully it will stick with a few. The only thing the Constitution does is define a subset of rights which the government 'shall not' infringe. Everything else, you've got it, unless the government is given the authority over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear.
The 9th amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
The very reason many opposed a Bill of Rights in the first place was that it could be interpreted as denying those rights not specifically enumerated. As such I think the 9th Amendment is one of the most important in the Bill of Rights. Sort of a conclusion to capture the essence of the entire Bill of Rights:
These are some things the Government cannot meddle with. We shouldn't have to say this, but just to be on the safe side we've listed some of them
Duckhunt for freedom (Score:2)
I can't wait for this + the revolution. It's going to be so fun shooting them down.
Mandatory Drug Testing for VA's Favorite Son (Score:2)
But wait! There's more!
Does the Governer of Virginia speak English?
Re:Mandatory Drug Testing for VA's Favorite Son (Score:4, Funny)
No. He speaks something that sounds like English, but the words have different meanings. It's called "Politician".
Uh... (Score:2)
How exactly can they ensure our privacy, when even the Air Force can't?
Who said anything about privacy?
Soon everyone I know will be in jail. (Score:2)
Because if they start looking into houses with unmanned drones and listening to everyone I'm sure there are enough laws to lock up everyone I know.
This is not just a bad idea, it's a treasonous idea. Unless we are declaring war on American citizens there is no reason to destroy communities with these drones. What is next? Allowing the police to attach guns and bombs to these drones?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless we are declaring war on American citizens...
Now you're starting to understand.
I don't recall Patrick Henry saying (Score:2)
Give me surveillance or give me death!
A little refresher (Score:2)
I suggest we all read up on our civil liberties, presumption of innocence, and the 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments of the constitution. Here's a quick recap, in case anyone slept through school
Presumption of innocence, aka "innocent until proven guilty" under drone surveillance suffers the same as current red light cameras, in that they provide no ability to confront your accuser (more on that later) and they presume guilt. Have you ever received on of those red-light-camera tickets. I've recei
What a waste of money (Score:2)
This is America...the police can walk right up and talk to you, question your friends, hire informants, or simply park outside your house and watch for a lot less money than a single drone flight. Its not like these guys are trying to carry out surveillance in a war zone where hostile people can open fire with automatic weapons at any moment. There are no roadside bombs.
Start militarizing the police and turning the nation into Stalinist USSR and that might change very fast.
Finally (Score:2)
Drones are for dangerous places (Score:2)
google air (or, "it's drones, all the way down") (Score:2)
And then we can sell $$ them anti-anti-surveillance drones. And then we can cash in $$$ on anti-anti-anti surveillance drones. Your imagination's the limit $$$$ ! (that's four dollar signs...)
Re: (Score:2)
That was non-informative. Which episode? What was it about? I'm guessing you meant this one:
WATCHBIRD http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29579/29579-h/29579-h.htm [gutenberg.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see...
Requiring all cops to go through SWAT team training, which is basically small unit assault training. To, you know, catch those militant speeders.
Military grade equipment (assault rifles, military grade body armor, 'military-only
Re: (Score:2)
militarized -past participle, past tense of militarize (Verb) Verb:
1. Give (something, esp. an organization) a military character or style: "militarized police forces". 2. Equip or supply with military resources.
No, something tells me you don't know what militarized means.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds great until you recall that even the military and the industrial complex that builds the drones can't seem to keep them under control. Remember that Iran now has all the cutting edge tech of a front line drone in their front pocket and also by extension, so does China. Post-mortem conclusion is that we were arrogant about the security of our com link and failed to see this one coming though we knew that they were working hard on it. Now just suppose that they decide to hack one of these drones and fly it into a school. Who is to know that they were to blame. Pilot error, computer glitch, GPS jamming, soft/firmware issue, ... You get the idea, people die all the same. These drones are simply toys and serve no real purpose in our kind of civil society other than to monitor the odd idiot that runs from the state police for going 10 miles over the speed limit. The cost is high and the returns are low. but we can still put our heads in the sand to another civil liberty being taken away in the name of better security. BS!
Why would anyone fly a drone into a school?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well our military industrial establishment is at least consistent in one thing, they don't treat US citizens and differently than they do Al Qeida. Anything for the cause I guess. We all shall be extinct soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets just get it over with and create skynet. Our pesky problems will be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
"English speaking G7 countries have announced new immigration systems that are very friendly to high value occupations that typically employ people with enough brains"
Where can I go to get more information? Problem is that its getting bad everywhere. Not so many places to run to anymore, which sadly makes them prime military targets, regardless of what side you are on.
Re: (Score:2)
In rich countries that is true to some degree. Think poor countries. They can't afford a 1984-esque police state. Still, among rich first world countries, it seems to mostly be a competition between the US and the UK as to who can reach the end game of 1984 first. Australia/New Zealand/Canada will reluctantly follow along. Their version of utopia where every citizen's actions are controlled and monitored at all times. I mean think about it. Isn't that the ultimate dream of those whose main goal in life is p
Re: (Score:2)
Every unneeded flight over a backyard; lock him up! Every observation of your children if not in the course of actual police business; lock him up. Every abuse - into the slammer.
Flying over backyards and observing people is not an invasion of privacy. You don't have sovereignty over the column starting from the center of Earth and ending at the distance to the Moon with cross-section of the "land" you supposedly "own".
Re: (Score:2)
Flying over backyards and observing people is not an invasion of privacy.
When it's being done by the government's numerous unmanned drones, it might as well be.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone rallies to protest the idea of the police having move capable and modern surveillance and tracking tools, until they discover the criminal who victimized them
"Everyone"? Really? Care to back that up?
In any case, it doesn't matter what they feel after being victimized. Let's not let victims be judges, juries, and executioners, shall we? What someone would or would not think if they were in a different situation than they are now (victimized) is irrelevant to whether or not they're correct right now.
What if someone was victimized in a house somewhere? The victim person might feel the need to have government cameras installed in every house. And since they were vic
Re: (Score:2)
it is safer then a real helicopter
I care more about the government's ability to cheaply and easily spy on people with unmanned drones than I do about a helicopter's safety. I don't even care about stopping "bad guys" when the government is attempting to expand its power. I don't envision a decent future if we allow them to do things such as this (but apparently you weren't thinking about the future). I don't even want to take the risk of giving the government more power to spy on its citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words drones can make life better for those who are not criminals.
I don't believe stopping criminals is important at all when the government is attempting to expand its power so that they can use unmanned drones to efficiently spy on its citizens.
But the TSA and the Patriot Act are good because they claim to stop the evil terrorists. And that's all that matters. Not privacy or stopping the progression of the government's tools used to spy on its citizens. Criminals are hiding behind every corner, after all, and governments would never abuse their citizens.