NYPD To Deploy Drones To Monitor Backyard Parties This Holiday Weekend (techspot.com) 120
"The NYC police department intends to use drones to monitor Labor Day backyard parties, raising privacy concerns," writes Slashdot reader jjslash. "Drone usage by U.S. police departments is increasing, with some operating them beyond visual line of sight. TechSpot reports: "If a caller states there's a large crowd, a large party in a backyard, we're going to be utilizing our assets to go up and go check on the party," said assistant NYPD Commissioner Kaz Daughtry at a recent press conference. Naturally, the admission attracted the attention of privacy and civil liberties advocates who questioned if the department's plans violate existing laws governing surveillance in the area.
In its unmanned aircraft systems (UAS): Impact and use policy from 2021, the NYC police department said drones would not be used in areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without a search warrant, except in exigent circumstances (PDF). Are backyard parties really all that pressing? "Deploying drones in this way is a sci-fi inspired scenario," said Daniel Schwarz, a technology and privacy strategist with the New York Civil Liberties Union. Schwarz added that it is at variance with the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act, which "requires the reporting and evaluation of surveillance technologies used by the NYPD."
In its unmanned aircraft systems (UAS): Impact and use policy from 2021, the NYC police department said drones would not be used in areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without a search warrant, except in exigent circumstances (PDF). Are backyard parties really all that pressing? "Deploying drones in this way is a sci-fi inspired scenario," said Daniel Schwarz, a technology and privacy strategist with the New York Civil Liberties Union. Schwarz added that it is at variance with the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act, which "requires the reporting and evaluation of surveillance technologies used by the NYPD."
do they have an warrant? (Score:5, Interesting)
do they have an warrant?
Re: (Score:3)
Drone strikes do not need warrants.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, and there has already been at least one court ruling (not in NY though) that for any activity in your back yard/property that is not directly visible from the street then there IS an expectation of privacy and any evidence the police collect using a drone without previous reasonable suspicion or a warrant is poisonous for any evidence gathered and any directly resulting police action or further investigation. As such it is highly possible that with a good lawyer any attempt at prosecution will fail.
Sad
Re:do they have an warrant? (Score:5, Informative)
Given Florida v. Riley that seems extremely unlikely to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:do they have an warrant? (Score:4, Informative)
That Riley decision imposed some limits: the police can't use drones if the public can't. And NYC has rules that require permits and notifications. Unless the police provide those notifications, I think they would be on the wrong side if Riley.
Re: (Score:2)
You are extrapolating beyond what Florida v. Riley [oyez.org] held.
Nothing in Riley said that "the police can't use drones if the public can't". It did, however, say in effect that "if the public can do X, then the police can do X also" and that is quite different from saying "the police can only do X if the public can do X as well". It was unnecessary for the court to even address the second issue in this case.
Riley was of course about helicopters rather than drones but that seems to make little difference to the i
Re: (Score:2)
You are extrapolating beyond what Florida v. Riley held.
No, I am not. The decision makes much of the fact that the airspace from which Riley's garden was observed was open to public flights. But, to make the point, I'll quote directly from the decision:
"We would have a different case if flying at that altitude had been contrary to law or regulation."
Re: (Score:2)
That dicta simply means that the case would be different and not the one they decided in Riley -- which was my entire point.
It says absolutely nothing about how they would have ruled in that different case. The court answered the question before them, not some hypothetical "different case" on which they had no record, briefs, or arguments.
Courts tend to (and should) rule as narrowly as possible to resolve the issue before them - as they did in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's legal in New York. And women can be topless in public. It's a great place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not legal in New York to posses weed. It is still against federal law and federal law overrides any local law.
For example if New York made assassinating the President legal, it still wouldn't be legal to assassinate the President if you and the President were in New York.
Or if New York made counterfeiting US currency legal, it still wouldn't be legal to counterfeit US currency in New York because the federal law would prevail.
Of course the odds of the feds bothering with prosecution in each of the
Re: (Score:3)
Like potheads are a problem. Alcoholics, on the other hand...
Re:do they have an warrant? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I can't look over my neighbor's privacy fence, and I can't fly a drone over it to take some sweet sunbathing pictures, then the police can't either, not without a warrant. And unless it's a no-knock warrant, they have to announce themselves, declare they have a warrant, and present it to me for inspection, before they can invade my privacy.
Gonna bet they're not willing to do that, it's going to go to court, and it's going to get struck down. An officer CAN come to "break up a loud party that's disturbing the peace", but that alone does not give them permission to force their way into my house and private property.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need no stinky warrants.
Re: (Score:2)
In the laaaaaaand of the free....
Say no while you can (Score:5, Insightful)
If a party is a problem, they can dispatch a cop to the scene. If a cop isn't needed on the scene, the party isn't a problem worth spying on it with a drone.
If you let drone surveillance become the standard, you won't be able to get rid of it, and the mission scope will be continually expanded.
Re:Say no while you can (Score:5, Interesting)
If a party is a problem, they can dispatch a cop to the scene. If a cop isn't needed on the scene, the party isn't a problem worth spying on it with a drone.
Exactly. Either it is a problem which requires intervention, or it is not. The people in my back yard are either a problem, or not. It is a private space. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you explicitly act to circumvent the presumed privacy of a person's home... get a warrant first. This is not the same as acting on what can be seen/heard from the street in the normal course of activity.
Re: Say no while you can (Score:2)
This isn't really about looking in somebody's backyard. It's about not happening to send somebody into a war zone. They don't want to look at your white ass and your backyard with your doofy friends.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't really about looking in somebody's backyard. It's about not happening to send somebody into a war zone. They don't want to look at your white ass and your backyard with your doofy friends.
There's always at least one fucking statist in the crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Then only if there is a 911 call (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want to look at your white ass and your backyard
Given how many times members of the police have abused data sources available only to them for exactly such things as "spying on their ex-girlfriend" or "peeping at their crush", it is quite likely that drones will be abused exactly for such purposes, too.
Re: Say no while you can (Score:2)
How about we send you, this time.
I have to imagine, the type of parties they are going to visit, are different than the parties that you are used to. Remember they have street takeovers now.
Re: Say no while you can (Score:4, Informative)
Bitch, please. None of that is new. That stuff was rampant in the 90s
Re: (Score:3)
What's new is that now we can do something about it.
Re: Say no while you can (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Different culture. Spain doesn't have "fiery but peaceful". Try that in Spain, it's going to end faster than in a small town in US.
Re: (Score:2)
Different culture. Spain doesn't have "fiery but peaceful". Try that in Spain, it's going to end faster than in a small town in US.
This. In many European cultures there is an unwritten understanding about when and where it's appropriate to do things a little inappropriate. The last time I heard obnoxiously loud Doof Doof music (I'm UK based) was about this time last year, when the local University took in it's new students. Sure, this annoyed me but by 10pm it had stopped (obvs, they'd just turned it down enough that I couldn't hear it...
If you're going to do something that will bother other people, you go somewhere with no-one to b
Re: (Score:2)
That makes it sound like you would like a Final Solution for that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I would like the US to have a decent social safety net and cops that don't shoot 500+ people per year to death. And a government that actually guarantees the right to privacy.
Sadly, those problems exist with the consent of a large part of the US population.
Re: (Score:2)
You already have a de facto partition of your nation, where others just refuse to live with that specific minority that is such an extreme outlier in its criminality compared to everyone else, it's like they're not a part of the rest of the nation.
The problem is that police have to actually deal with those people, so they end up shooting a dozen of them a year or so without cause, in addition to thousands upon tens of thousands of completely justified shootings because that was the only reasonable thing to
Re: (Score:1)
U2 can make another video on a roof, this time in Hell's Kitchen. Bonus is all that extra aerial footage to mix in.
Re: Say no while you can (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Remember they have street takeovers now.
On public property. Where the police have a right to be.
Not in my backyard. Where they do not have a right to be without an invitation/warrant/exigent circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get too uppity. Your location to the closest centimeter is tracked by your phone. They can always dispatch a drone strike to you as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Say no while you can (Score:2)
So let the police break the law so the police don't murder people carelessly?
Bacon: in every meal, whether you want it or not, or else!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Say no while you can (Score:1)
ProTip: The actual mission scope is to deploy as much military hardware on the streets as possible (presumably funded by you) to edge towards militaristic police state and n benefit from that sweet collaboration with military tech companies.
Ooh, and to get wet t-shirt images and grab weed stashes with the weed-grabber-arm attachment for drones.
Re: Say no while you can (Score:4, Insightful)
Having been called in as a third party to add security and logging to systems that made the news for being abused by police I can tell you from experience...
Yes, if they are bored and think they won't get caught, they absolutely will use these systems for voyeurism. And if they see something they find entertaining, it will get shared around with everyone they trust not to report them.
You're never going to feel comfortable with your curtains or blinds open ever again unless you are fine with the possibility of cops staring into your home at any time. I can pretty much guarantee that at some point a drone will end up hovering over a woman for a down-blouse shot or looking through a bathroom or bedroom window. And there is a non-zero chance that video will end up on the Internet if they think it's amusing enough and won't be traced back to them.
That sounds pretty awful to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You're never going to feel comfortable with your curtains or blinds open ever again unless you are fine with the possibility of cops staring into your home at any time. I can pretty much guarantee that at some point a drone will end up hovering over a woman for a down-blouse shot or looking through a bathroom or bedroom window.
"MY EYES... the googles, they do nothing!"
Re: (Score:2)
"If a party is a problem"
How do you determine whether the party is the problem or the person complaining about the party is the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
"If a party is a problem"
How do you determine whether the party is the problem or the person complaining about the party is the problem?
Typically by sending an officer to the area. They use their judgement as to whether the party is causing a disturbance based on what they see/hear when they approach.
Re: (Score:2)
OP's premise was "If a party is a problem, they can dispatch a cop to the scene." But the only solution you offer to determining the antecedent is sending a cop, so your circular reasoning is just in favor of always sending a cop no matter what. The limit of this policy is swatting, which cannot be rejected as a slippery slope fallacy since it actually happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If there is a report of a problem, send a patrol officer to respond/investigate. That is standard procedure, everywhere.
Assuming a SWAT response is a slippery slope as it is not standard policy.
Re: (Score:2)
The police would be free to respond with a police helicopter as they do regularly when they deem it appropriate. What would make a drone different (assuming it was following FAA rules)?
Simple solution (which they won't do) (Score:1)
Re: Simple solution (which they won't do) (Score:1)
Which rock do you live under?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Simple solution (which they won't do) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Its outdoors. If you don't want to be seen stay indoors.
If you don't want the IR cameras to see, put IR insulation in your home.
It will fly above public roads and sidewalks. Doesn't concern the owner.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That municipal employee may get the shit beaten out of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution (which they won't do) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? No backyard event is sizeable enough to "warrant drone surveillance".
Oh wow, you clearly know nothing about "backyard events" which have gotten out of control. Yeah it is possible to fit literally thousands of people in a backyard event, and those very very quickly get completely out of hand.
It is unlikely that drone surveillance is necessary, but not because of the size, rather because surveillance doesn't actually achieve fuck all and you need to ultimately send people in anyway.
It doesn't matter if you have 2 people or 50.
LOL, 50? I've hard parties bigger than that on rainy days that didn't even start using the back
Re: (Score:2)
"simple solution" - ROFLMAO.
stop it - you're killing me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Who comes to extract the remains of the municipal employee (not a cop)?
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm so glad you are volunteering to be the municipal employee who is sent in to the party to tell them to shut it down. Ya, not having a couple of patrolmen do the visit is SUCH a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Laser pointers will save the day (Score:2, Interesting)
Just get a bunch of people to shine them on the drones. Hell even some LED flashlights might be enough to blind the cameras. Radio jammers can't hurt. If they can break the law, so can we
Re: Laser pointers will save the day (Score:2)
Brilliant.
Re: Laser pointers will save the day (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you and your friends are precise enough to keep a small point aimed on the camera lens of a fast moving drone for 20-30 minutes at a time, and you use this skill just to blind drones with laser pointers at a party, you all are wasting your talents.
Also, you throw terrible parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Just get a bunch of people to shine them on the drones. Hell even some LED flashlights might be enough to blind the cameras. Radio jammers can't hurt. If they can break the law, so can we
I've always wondered what it would take to build a ducted, auto-targeted EMP turret inside of a plastic dog igloo... It would be virtually undetectable.
Please put down your beer... (Score:2)
... you have 20 seconds to comply.
Re: (Score:2)
... you have 20 seconds to comply.
Drone strike!
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a beer can cannon time.
huh? (Score:3)
Are parties illegal in NYC? What are they monitoring for? Even the article doesn't say. Bizarre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Are parties illegal in NYC? What are they monitoring for? Even the article doesn't say. Bizarre."
Yep. I was wondering that myself. I can think of some issues:
1) Safety- from a fire/evaluation/injury perspective
2) Noise
3) Potentially parking
But none of those are assured. Doesn't have to be noisy, and if it is, then just call the police and deal with THAT as the problem. Doesn't have to involve parking issues either. So safety is about the only thing I would think they could base pre-emptive action
Re: (Score:2)
Parties that they are talking about monitoring are illegal everywhere. They are talking about nuisance parties, the ones which get massively out of control, like the ones where police need to be dispatched and results in a higher number of arrests than the number people you have in mind when you think "party".
Re: (Score:2)
In that case they can get a warrant after receiving a complaint from a neighbor. Then they're free to use a drone or whatever surveillance method is allowed by the warrant.
This is stepping over the line. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is stepping over the line.
This can now be used to justify almost any level of intrusive surveillance.
Since drones are basically flying body cams everything they see will end up on some storage system somewhere.
Creating a constant level of fear in the populous that any thing they do anywhere may be held against them. Perfectly innocent actions taken out of context can and are used all the time to prosecute people. If your multiple the volume of recorded material you are multiplying opportunities for authorities to over step. Every single advancement that enables authorities to observe what the populous is doing has been abused by Government and industry.
A classic example is your medical information being sold to insurance companies to be used against you. To deny you claims. To inflate your rates. All because the gov opening sold this information to them. ( This is quite common around the world. )
Here's a scenario.
Inevitably crimes will be created around the damaging and destruction of these drones as well. Imagine the poor family that finds SWAT at their door because a drone was downed by a bird over their property. All we need is the last recorded images being some guy giving the finger and raising a broom at a drone. Of course they are going to charge the perfectly innocent dude. Even though it feel for perfectly innocent reasons.
Another scenario.
The miss use of the drones. Inevitably some idiot cop is going to use it to perv on someone or stalk a former lover etc. There are already issues with this with the various capabilities police have at their disposal.
Re: (Score:2)
Since drones are basically flying body cams everything they see will end up on some storage system somewhere.
I'm sure the drone cameras will regularly 'malfunction" at opportune moments.
Re: (Score:2)
"This can now be used to justify almost any level of intrusive surveillance."
Public airspace - start surveilling the cops and the mayors houses with live video feed, watch how fast this shit gets stomped out.
Re: (Score:2)
Is boot leather some sort of delicious treat for you?
Over-reach and too much power without oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
When any branch of government ever remotely tries to justify ANYTHING like this it is time to rid them from their positions. If the people in NYC and state aren't voting every fucking idiot out that supports this from the police in any remote way, they need to be removed. Police unions need to be stripped and removed. Cameras should not be able to be turned off by poilce. ALL police camera footage should immediately be accessible, no questions asked to anyone in any police interaction whatsoever. In addition to that, all police footage even when there is not an incident should have a regular citizen review board that constantly and randomly reviews footage from all cameras whether there is an active incident or not. Purely randomized review and if the camera is not worn or is covered, the police are not acting in an official capacity. This is the only way that police corruption will be rooted out. They need to brought down not just a notch, but they need their damn wings clipped.
Re: (Score:2)
Airspace isn't the NYPDs (Score:4, Insightful)
0-400 foot above ground level (AGL) belongs to the homeowner.
400ft and above is the purview of the FAA.
Google it if you don't believe me.
The NYPD is either trespassing in federally controlled airspace, or on private homeowner's property.
The former requires a permit. The latter requires a permit.
FNYPD.
And F all the Nazis who think the uniform allows them to violate everyone's constitutional rights.
Re:Airspace isn't the NYPDs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I support this policy in any way, but you don't have to actually fly over the property to see it. You just have to fly higher than the fence.
Deliberately violating someone's privacy when they have taken affirmative action to preserve that privacy is a violation of the law. Having a privacy fence around your yard is as much an affirmation of intent to preserve privacy as closing the door or the curtains.
If you do it, you are a peeping tom. If the police do it, it is a 4th amendment violation.
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the problem. To film something with a drone, you don't need to be over that something. In fact, you don't want to be over that something, because footage from directly above is way less useful than from a decent angle.
So drone can fly over the street and film backyards, and it would actually do better than if it flew over said backyards.
Re: (Score:2)
So drone can fly over the street and film backyards, and it would actually do better than if it flew over said backyards.
Legally grey area. It would depend on the judge.
Patrolling the street and incidentally capturing evidence of illegal activity in a private area would likely pass, but if the action was a deliberate attempt to evade the requirement for a warrant... Warrants are based on judicial authority. Evading that authority is stepping on the judge's toes. They do not like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be prosecuted to hell and back, and those involved should rot in the deepest pits of hell as far as I'm concerned.
That doesn't change the fact that you'd want to take video not from directly above, but at an angle.
Sale of beanbag rounds skyrocket! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm assuming these drones won't be up that high... it might make for a fun party contest to see who can pick the drone out of the sky using a beanbag shotgun round!
Someone really needs to hire a lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
Just took a look at what the courts current accept in the way of aerial surveillance that doesn't constitute a search under the fourth amendment. Boils down to 1000 feet AGL for planes and 500 feet AGL for helicopters. Any closer and you need a warrant. But civilian drones are allowed no more that 400 feet AGL, so it seems that drones are inherently closer than helicopters. This seem that it would encourage police to use drones with appropriate sensor packages because they can get closer to the subjects they wish to observe. In turn, it makes the prior limits meaningless and as such constitutes an unacceptable invasion of privacy. So someone really needs to unleash the attack lawyers ASAP.
Jam The Signal (Score:4, Interesting)
And get 4 friends to hold out a blanket to catch it when it falls. Football helmet and gloves optional.
A police state (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming to a black neighbourhood near you.
Last year, there were news articles about strangers using drones to look inside houses: This isn't different, apart from some arsehole saying the law doesn't apply to his badge. If a police officer did this in the flesh, it would be gate-crashing, or lacking probable cause.
Think of all the silly things that happen at parties; nudity (Recording such is a crime: Will the police arrest themselves?), groping, fighting, drugs and under-age drinking. A list of bad behaviours that can be cause for arrest: Truly a police state.
Expectation of privacy (Score:3)
if a party is loud enough to raise noise complaints from the neighbors, your activity is no longer private.
Re: (Score:3)
And in other news ... (Score:1)
they should be easy to track with remote id (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely government drones have to follow the same rules as we do.
reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:1)
Governmental overreach (Score:2)
/o\ (Score:1)
... and the land of the free........! (*)
(*) subject to fine print, including but not limited to engaging in ordinary social gathering.
Has Mayor Humdinger banned fun?
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to fly over something that doesn't exist. Skyscrapers rarely if ever have back yards.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience, the farther left, the farther fascist. I offer Berkeley as prime example, SF not far behind.