Should Police Departments Use Drones? (wired.com) 195
Wired visits Chula Vista, California (population: 275,487) — where since 2018 drones have been dispatched by police "teleoperators" monitoring 911 calls. ("Noise complaints, car accidents, overdoses, domestic disputes...") After nearly 20,000 drone flights, it's become the envy of other police departments, according to Wired's article, as other police departments "look to expand their use of unmanned aerial aircraft."
The [Chula Vista] department says that its drones provide officers with critical intelligence about incidents they are responding to ahead of initiating in-person contact — which the CVPD says has reduced unnecessary police contacts, decreased response times, and saved lives. But a WIRED investigation paints a complicated picture of the trade-offs between public safety and privacy. In Chula Vista, drone flight paths trace a map of the city's inequality, with poorer residents experiencing far more exposure to the drones' cameras and rotors than their wealthier counterparts, a WIRED analysis of nearly 10,000 drone flight records from July 2021 to September 2023 found. The drones, often dispatched for serious incidents like reports of armed individuals, are also routinely deployed for minor issues such as shoplifting, vandalism, and loud music. [Drones are sent in response to about 1 in every 14 calls.] Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, the city even used drones to broadcast public service announcements to homeless encampments.
Despite the police promoting the benefits of the "Drone as First Responder" program, residents who encounter the technology day-to-day report feeling constantly watched. Some say they are afraid to spend time in their backyards; they fear that the machines are following them down the street, spying on them while they use the public pool or change their clothes. One resident says that he was so worried that the drones were harassing him that he went to the emergency room for severe depression and exhaustion. [A 60-year-old professor told Wired that the sound of drones kept them awake at night.]
The police drones, equipped with cameras and zoom lenses powerful enough to capture faces clearly and constantly recording while in flight, have amassed hundreds of hours of video footage of the city's residents. Their flight paths routinely take them over backyards and above public pools, high schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, immigration law firms, and even the city's Planned Parenthood facility. Privacy advocates argue that the extensive footage captured by the drones makes it difficult to distinguish between flights responding to specific incidents and mass surveillance from the sky. Department secrecy around the recordings remains the subject of ongoing litigation... At the time of our analysis, approximately one in 10 drone flights listed on the department's transparency portal lacked a stated purpose and could not be connected to any relevant 911 call.
Despite the police promoting the benefits of the "Drone as First Responder" program, residents who encounter the technology day-to-day report feeling constantly watched. Some say they are afraid to spend time in their backyards; they fear that the machines are following them down the street, spying on them while they use the public pool or change their clothes. One resident says that he was so worried that the drones were harassing him that he went to the emergency room for severe depression and exhaustion. [A 60-year-old professor told Wired that the sound of drones kept them awake at night.]
The police drones, equipped with cameras and zoom lenses powerful enough to capture faces clearly and constantly recording while in flight, have amassed hundreds of hours of video footage of the city's residents. Their flight paths routinely take them over backyards and above public pools, high schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, immigration law firms, and even the city's Planned Parenthood facility. Privacy advocates argue that the extensive footage captured by the drones makes it difficult to distinguish between flights responding to specific incidents and mass surveillance from the sky. Department secrecy around the recordings remains the subject of ongoing litigation... At the time of our analysis, approximately one in 10 drone flights listed on the department's transparency portal lacked a stated purpose and could not be connected to any relevant 911 call.
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Chula Vista, drone flight paths trace a map of the city's inequality, with poorer residents experiencing far more exposure to the drones' cameras and rotors than their wealthier counterparts, a WIRED analysis of nearly 10,000 drone flight records from July 2021 to September 2023 found.
Are we seriously going to pretend that there really isn't more real crime in the poor part of town??
What am I saying; of course we are ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the residents would prefer that the money is spent tackling the causes of crime and poverty, rather than on drones.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Criminals?
Aren't criminals the cause of crime?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are observing the effect, not the cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are observing the effect, not the cause.
The cause is people feeling entitled to take what they want without paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth but theft isn't the only crime. Arson, assault, rape, murder, all the way down to petty vandalism are all real crimes with real victims she doesn't care about or even acknowledge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But even there sorting them by the type of crime doesn't tell us the whole story, the real break down for crimes should be rational vs irrational (rational from the criminals point of view and then we can follow the steps that led them to such a decision). The former you can make some societal prescriptions about, the latter is not much more than random chance but is also more rare.
To be clear that doesn't mean you change how you handle a criminal, a crime is still done and has to be dealt with but if we o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like oligarchs who pay the statutory minimum for labor because they're not allowed to pay less?
That is what you meant, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is your real name Javert?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are observing the effect, not the cause.
The cause is people feeling entitled to take what they want without paying for it.
Feeling entitled, feeling as if it is their best option in their circumstances -- same thing, I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are observing the effect, not the cause.
The cause is people feeling entitled to take what they want without paying for it.
You mean the corporatists who rule using the money they've effectively stolen via the various and many kinds of corporate welfare? Or the people who get rich working for, for example, the oil companies, who lied about global warming for decades and who have effectively stolen from every single human being on the entire planet?
Oh, no, of course you don't mean those people. You're talking about the ones who are a bit dirtier, who lack polish and fixers and PR departments. Way to go for the low-hanging fruit!
Re: (Score:3)
And if that were even remotely the full truth, fighting crime would be easy. It is not.
Japanese 7 year old on 1 hour commute (Score:3)
Meanwhile, USA mom does not even want to return shopping cart to rack FEARING KIDS WILL BE ABDUCTED. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
maybe something is wrong in the USA with culture and society?
Re: (Score:2)
Going on the subway alone. Completely inconceivable in the USA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Meanwhile, USA mom does not even want to return shopping cart to rack FEARING KIDS WILL BE ABDUCTED.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
maybe something is wrong in the USA with culture and society?
You don't even need to be in America for an American man to abduct you [cnn.com] or murder and rape you [cnn.com]. So yeah, probably something wrong with male culture in American society.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't to say that there isn't something wrong with US culture and society; it's just that that something is much more likely to be a frankly unhinged level of fear about crime substantially unsupported by it
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry you're marked -1. You're right, but there's a lot of deranged people floating around Slashdot these days.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. It's the entertainment industry that's been glorifying people doing bad things in music and media for the last 25 years is the cause.
Work hard in school = lame
Popping caps in stuff = super cool
Got a nice haircut and nice clothes = lame
mouth full of gold teeth = role model
Re: (Score:3)
Nerds weren't cool back in the 1950s either.
Re: (Score:3)
You are observing the effect, not the cause.
That's the job of the police, to deal with the effects. The root causes are for politicians to deal with outside of policing. Education, jobs, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
What causes criminals?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What causes criminals?
Lack of effective labour laws, collective bargaining, & poor law enforcement allows criminals to get away with & therefore habitualise wage theft & maltreatment of workers, e.g. dangerous working conditions, physical & sexual abuse, & wage theft; these crimes are among the most common. If they were counted & reported on in the same way as crimes outside of the workplace, it'd paint a very different picture of society.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
wage theft, maltreatment of workers, physical & sexual abuse
So you are basically saying that crime causes crime.
I think what you are trying to say, is that lack of character causes crime. That applies to cruel work bosses, shoplifters, and street gangs alike.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime does cause crime... It's just that crimes by employers and against women and children are are rarely prosecuted, and not the sort of thing that a drone will help with.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important deterrent isn't so much the punishment but the likelihood of getting caught. If nobody's responding to crimes being committed, they are de facto acceptable & become normalised (e.g. wage theft increases profits). If regulators effectively prosecuted employers for wage theft, dangerous working conditions, & physical & sexual assault, there'd be a lot less of it in the work
Re: (Score:3)
Both of you seem to have severely short attention spans since neither of you were able to read even an entire sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of character.
A person of character won't commit crime even if they are poor, or mentally ill, or go through trauma.
The converse is, a criminal is more likely to become poor, because the character traits that make someone willing to commit crime (irresponsibility) are the same character traits that cause them not to succeed in the workplace.
Re: (Score:2)
But what causes a lack of character? Babies aren't born without it, are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Counting prisoners is problematic -- you are selecting for criminals that have low intelligence or are unable to get good lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The number one statistic correlating with poverty is coming from a single mother home.
In the US, poor people go to college for free if they graduated from high school. What opportunity are they not getting?
What opportunity do you think they're not getting? Should the government provide them a father in the home? That is literally what most poor people are missing.
Re: (Score:3)
So if you thought you could 100% get away with a crime that benefitted you, you would do it?
That's the point I am making, nearly all would. Hence the need to prosecute and punish, to create a doubt that one would get away with it. The human race is opportunistic. Banditry arose along side farming.
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate cause of any societal problem is people. The problem with framing the problem in this way is that it leads to the following solution: change human nature.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Perhaps the residents would prefer that the money is spent tackling the causes of crime and poverty, rather than on drones."
The money spent on the drones might actually make a real difference. Can almost guarantee that if we throw that money at the typical "social programs" it will have far less impact on crime reduction. That is not to say I wouldn't want to do both, as long as the "social programs" are about actually helping people to become better people- useful education, for example. Unfortunat
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should try it. Throwing money at police and giving them more equipment and weapons hasn't had the desired effect.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we both believe it is more complex than just throwing money at police equipment or social programs. That is just a political soundbyte and not an approach to real solutions. And it isn't going to be an all-or-nothing situation that works, at least not long-term. So many things contribute to crime, including the definition of crime, itself. But one thing is for sure, crime is rarely about meeting basic needs. Not in the USA, anyway. So there is a value system that comes into serious play (perso
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, youth crime went down when we started funding youth centres, early intervention, and education. It went back up when we stopped funding those things.
While there was a cut in police numbers along with the cut to youth related funding, there wasn't a massive surge in them, or in their budgets, when it went down.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the job of the police department, it's the job of social services. And *lots* of money is being spent by social services to combat the "causes" of crime.
What *is* the cause of crime, anyway?
Is it poverty? If that were true, then the majority of poor people would be criminals.
Is it mental illness? If that were true, then the majority of mentally ill people would be criminals.
Is it trauma? If that were true, then the majority of people who go through trauma, would be criminals.
The reality is that only a small percentage of each of these categories, commit crimes. So while they each may be contributing factors, the most important factor is character. A person of character will not commit crime even if they are poor, or mentally ill, or go through trauma.
I volunteer in a crime-ridden area of Houston, and I know plenty of poor people, and mentally ill people, and people who have gone through trauma, who are the most decent, kind people you could ever meet. They themselves volunteer with us, to help their neighbors who are worse off than they are.
Re: (Score:2)
The police was called. The police are supposed to go check what is happening. Is a patrol car with two officers cheaper than the drone?
Re: Seriously? (Score:2)
Drones are cool, public funding for schools isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Start at the bottom. The primary cause is a teachers' union run education system and a lack of adult roll models.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the poorer residents support the idea of sending agents that shoot video rather than bullets.
Re: (Score:2)
the part you're missing is "without stated purpose". you shouldn't need to get rich to have the right of not being stalked.
this one is really easy: let them fly their toys without justification over expensive villas, pools and parties, see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
let them fly their toys without justification over expensive villas, pools and parties, see what happens.
The kind of crime taking place there isn't readily visible from the air.
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely another step in the wrong direction. My/our freedoms are inconvenient for law enforcement personnel, so they'll continue to be eroded.
Of note to one or two of the poors in Chula Vista: might be an ideal time to startup a backyard awning company.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Are we seriously going to pretend that there really isn't more real crime in the poor part of town??"
Was exactly my thoughts when I saw the sentence. Have to have something like that in every article. Victims, victims everywhere.
The *reality* is that people in the so-called "inequality" areas probably would want *more* things like drone presence to help fight and deter crime because it impacts them much more.
And from summary:
>"The drones, often dispatched for serious incidents like reports of armed individuals, are also routinely deployed for minor issues such as shoplifting, vandalism, and loud music."
So they should only be sent in for serious incidents? Why? It is ignoring low-level crime that leads to high-level crime. I think it would be wrong to use these as general spy-tech, we have enough of that already, but if there is a call or valid suspicion, I see no problem with that.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Chula Vista, drone flight paths trace a map of the city's inequality, with poorer residents experiencing far more exposure to the drones' cameras and rotors than their wealthier counterparts, a WIRED analysis of nearly 10,000 drone flight records from July 2021 to September 2023 found.
Are we seriously going to pretend that there really isn't more real crime in the poor part of town??
What am I saying; of course we are ...
Define: ‘more real crime’. If you are counting instances of criminal activity without any consideration for the nature of those crimes then yes, there is more real crime in the poor part of town. The rich part of town has fewer individual instances of crimes committed but they tend to be far more damaging to society and have been known to ruin entire local, national or even threaten to tank the global economy and, in case anyone here is in doubt, those are ‘real crimes’ too. The collateral damage of a single white collar crime can outweigh a whole lot of shoplifting, sneak thievery and car theft.
Re: Seriously? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure they're not going to dispatch a drone to investigate a report of insider trading. The crimes of the rich happen in offices.
Actually, it would not surprise me if AI bots were monitoring all market trading and flagging anything suspicious at a level that will infuriate a bunch of elites that today are getting away with murder and I won’t be crying any rivers over that. Having said this, I simply took issue with his assertion that only poor people commit ‘real crimes’ and the insinuation that the poor somehow require the more monitoring than the worthy rich. The police can dispatch as many drones as they want to
Equal policing is not what you want (Score:2)
Targetting the type of policing that is most effective at tackling the different types of crime happing in different areas seems like a reasonable thing to do. If everywhere h
Re: (Score:2)
We are seriously not going to pretend that there is a lot less privacy in the poor part of town, because that's what the data shows. Besides, if the rich have nothing to hide, why do they resist being monitored?
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, if the rich have nothing to hide, why do they resist being monitored?
That's kind of a rhetorical question, but I'm going to bite anyway. The rich, just like the rest of us, resist being monitored because they have the same primal reaction against being watched and stared at surreptitiously that the rest of us have.
Not to mention that their bullshit sensors scream just as loudly as ours when the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" rationalization for spying is trotted out by those who ought to know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez! But since they largely determine who gets elected - and therefore set the legal agenda, why don't they protect us the same way they protect themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
The rich also have more to hide. That's how they became rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones. So convenient, you can run them from the comfort of your donut shop.
Re: (Score:2)
The cycle of "rich pretend that more policing on the poor neighborhoods isn't because poor are more criminal, and so it's bad, all while poor want more policing on their neighborhood because they have to live with that criminality and really want for it to go down".
You'd think that this lesson would stay in memory considering how recent the crime wave and incredible suffering it caused for poor people that came as a result of BLM and Defund The Police movements.
But that would require the rich to stop caring
If information is part of the value (Score:4, Insightful)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Information about you and me has value, it is the basis of many theories of privacy, but it's monetized, even at this site. And so, my private information, having value, is subject to unreasonable search in Chula Vista CA, should I visit there.
Within the description offered, Chula Vista's police department is abusing their authority, to its residents, and if they can't confine their operation of drones as described, should stop their use.
This is my opinion; the courts will tend to suit themselves, there being no other reasonable citizen recourse.
Re: (Score:3)
>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
In the context of law, generally, a drone observing stuff from the air is considered "in the public", where you have no expectation of privacy. Even over your own properly. Observing in public is not a search nor seizure, much less an unreasonable one.
That said, I don't think such drones should be used over private property without probable cause. An
Re: (Score:3)
Let's switch contexts. You are not me.
I do have an expectation of privacy, no matter the location of the drone. As cited, my view is that with that expectation of privacy, the drone is invasive to that expectation. It is an unreasonable search. My privacy should be sacrosanct.
The courts don't believe, as courts tend to side with the ostensible needs of police, that my privacy is worth crap. This fact, in my mind, is not reasonable and is not constitutional. The authors of the constitution had defined bounda
Re: (Score:2)
>"Let's switch contexts. You are not me."
And yet, we don't disagree :)
I think we *should* have some expectations of privacy, even in public. I was just pointing out that we don't.
I am, generally, an originalist, but we don't even have to go back as far as the Founding to find that people who could not have possibly imagined a world where "electronic eyes" could watch (and hear) us, in better-than-human clarity, without blinking or resting, gazing 24/7, "remembering" everything it saw for essentially "fo
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I think it will take still another amendment to articulate and define what privacy is, the dignity it provides, the boundaries for it, and what consent actually means.
Until then, boundaries will be pushed endlessly until there is a death-by-a-thousand privacy cuts. AI will only make it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of law, generally, a drone observing stuff from the air is considered "in the public", where you have no expectation of privacy. Even over your own properly. Observing in public is not a search nor seizure, much less an unreasonable one.
California generally requires line-of-sight for drone flights. This police department, or police in general, must have some kind of special exemption from this requirement, which might mean that some the types of things the drone operator can see are not in the public view, so would be protected by the 4th.
In before the "if you're doing nothing wrong you (Score:5, Interesting)
have nothing to fear" crowd.
Despite the police promoting the benefits of the "Drone as First Responder" program, residents who encounter the technology day-to-day report feeling constantly watched. Some say they are afraid to spend time in their backyards; they fear that the machines are following them down the street, spying on them while they use the public pool or change their clothes. One resident says that he was so worried that the drones were harassing him that he went to the emergency room for severe depression and exhaustion. [A 60-year-old professor told Wired that the sound of drones kept them awake at night.]
Yea. This is fucking horrible, but also sending a drone first means a delayed response from real people which means deaths.
The fact, though, is that often the police are just the clean up crew as it is. Delaying real response even more while cementing even more surveillance states apparatus (in my area they already get military equipment which is insane in and of itself) is not a good trajectory. The police promoting anything is generally because it's giving them more power (often with little to no oversight) and makes them lazier - such as using not being able to get in a phone as an excuse to not do real police work.
Re:In before the "if you're doing nothing wrong yo (Score:4, Interesting)
As per USSC, the police are not required to respond to nor stop crime, only write a report afterwards.
Re: (Score:3)
>"also sending a drone first means a delayed response from real people which means deaths."
Doesn't mean a drone can't be sent in at the same time, and will get there first, meaning the threat can be better assessed (or even dismissed as invalid). Especially important if there is a sudden demand for police and there aren't enough resources, so it becomes even more important to help categorize and triage multiple events.
So, like with pretty much all tools, their "goodness" or "badness" depends on how they
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary:
The [Chula Vista] department says that its drones provide officers with critical intelligence about incidents they are responding to ahead of initiating in-person contact — which the CVPD says has reduced unnecessary police contacts, decreased response times, and saved lives.
So response times seem to be *reduced* as a result of drone use, not increased.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea. This is fucking horrible, but also sending a drone first means a delayed response from real people which means deaths.
The deaths often happen when the police show up on the scene with no information and make a bad call... and they kill someone.
What a dysopia! (Score:2)
Holy crap that's wild....right out of a dystopian sci-fi novel.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Holy crap that's wild....right out of a dystopian sci-fi novel."
Where were you when they were using drones to locate and then make "public service announcements" to people outside during the pandemic "lockdowns", reminding them of the sub-minuscule possibility of transmission while outdoors?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes; Drones are available to the public (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the public can use drones, I don't see any reason that the police should be prohibited from using them. It's roughly the same as saying police forces shouldn't be able to use automobiles because they would be able to respond to crimes faster or prohibiting police from using two-way radios because they would be able to communicate at a greater distance. Yes, drones can be abused, and so can any modern technology that the police are using. I would object to the police arming drones or converting them into impromptu guided missiles. If I can't stick a gun on my drone, there's no reason for the police to have this ability.
I think you're forgetting we authorize police to do many things an ordinary citizen cannot. I can't put you in involuntary handcuffs and haul you to a cell. I can't enter your house (with a warrant) and search for evidence of a crime. I can't draw a gun on you. I can't fly a drone over your backyard. If I tail you with a drone as you walk down a public street, I might be in trouble for harassment. Police officers can do all of the above. More to the point, if I collect evidence on you and hand it to a DA, t
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need an officer to operate the drones. You'll want similar levels of background checks, but you don't need people with the fitness of cops, being in a wheelchair will work, for example and they don't need to be able to fire a gun.
Some savings there.
Re: (Score:2)
If the public can use drones, I don't see any reason that the police should be prohibited from using them
California and the FAA both apply limitations to the use of drones. I suspect that this use by police is not in compliance with the requirements applied to use of drones by ordinary citizens. The situation isn't quite as simple as the one you propose.
Allowed by citizens ? (Score:5, Insightful)
May I suggest a simple razor for police and other govt powers: "Is this allowed by private citizens?" If so, govt/police can do it. If not, then they need a warrant (clearly general warrant disallowed).
Perception (Score:2)
Cops have so far proven themselves so trustworthy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The data shows that crime rates of all types - violent crime and property crimes - have decreased dramatically since the 1990s.
https://www.pewresearch.org/sh... [pewresearch.org]
It seems your kneejerk reaction might be based on faulty perceptions. Police have become far *more* effective over the last 30 years, not less.
Re: (Score:2)
The data shows that crime rates of all types - violent crime and property crimes - have decreased dramatically since the 1990s.
https://www.pewresearch.org/sh... [pewresearch.org]
It seems your kneejerk reaction might be based on faulty perceptions. Police have become far *more* effective over the last 30 years, not less.
Crime rates have indeed dropped as you cite. Are you suggesting that this is related in some way to the rate at which the police do or do not abuse the rights of citizens, and that this rate has increased or decreased? Did you have a response that had anything to do with my comment, or did you just want to share the good news?
Re: (Score:2)
My response was about police effectiveness, the data backs that up, as I pointed out.
You are making an accusation about police abuse. What data backs that up? Do you have some to share? Or do you just have an axe to grind?
There certainly are abuses by police, that is not the question. The question is, how pervasive is it? I don't see data that backs up the notion that it is "normal" for police to be abusive.
Re: (Score:2)
The drop in crime rates also tracks (with delay) the reduction of lead in the environment.
Perhaps you are using faulty perceptions?
Yes, but all rules should appy (Score:5, Insightful)
yes (Score:3)
Of course police should use drones. They're a helpful tool.
Might they be abused? Also unquestionably yes, they need to have rules, limits, and user training, as well as punishment for rule-breakers like any tool.
"...paths trace a map of the city's inequality, with poorer residents experiencing far more exposure to the drones' cameras and rotors than their wealthier ..."
Yeah, now let's see where the most violent CRIME happens, you tendentious Marxist fucks. I'm surprised you missed the opportunity to race bait.
IDGAF about drones buzzing over the property of famous people in Hollywood, neither do I give a damn about drones buzzing over the property of poor people, unless they're breaking noise or peeping-Tom laws, in which case there's already laws to deal with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones as a Patrol Partner (Score:2)
A tradeoff (Score:3)
The possibility of unwanted surveillance is clearly a downside, but their survey "found that residents across the board are largely in favor of the DFR program and that, as a trend, the poorer the resident, the more likely they were to support the drone program." But then also "a majority are concerned that devices might record people not suspected of a crime or that the video might be shared with federal immigration authorities". Chula Vista is a stone's throw from Tijuana.
The police department refuses "to release footage captured by its drones" which is suspicious, but then if all the drone footage were to be made public it would indeed seem like a large invasion of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
We need a strong oversight apparatus to be continually reviewing and controlling the use of surveillance footage. We need this already, and will need it more as the police continue to gather more surveillance data whether we like it or not.
You are on camera, with or without drones (Score:2)
You walk down the street, through a neighborhood, into a store or restaurant, in an office, at a gas station...guess what, you are on camera. Drones don't really change that.
As long as police observe the law and the Constitution while using drones, I don't see the issue. Drones, in and of themselves, don't clearly violate our rights.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as police observe the law and the Constitution while using drones, I don't see the issue.
Either they are not observing the law, or the law has special exemptions for law enforcement. I don't believe the described use could possibly in compliance with the law that is applied to ordinary people using drones in California.
"Following the law" is meaningless if the law has massive exemptions for law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
There is quite a bit of legal precedent on this issue. Courts have ruled that the 4th amendment does not necessarily require a warrant for aerial surveillance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
They should use drones to replace helis (Score:2)
All the things they do with manned turbine singlecopters now should be done with unmanned electric multicopters instead. They are cheaper to operate, they are quieter, and there is less risk of loss of life.
But if the question is whether the cops should field massive swarms of surveillance drones, the answer is no. That would be both invasive and hazardous.
How about we keep things simple? (Score:3)
Whatever civilians get, police get. Whatever civilians don't get, police don't get.
Civilians get drones? Then police get drones. Civilians get handguns? Then police get handguns. Civilians get AR-15s? Then Police get AR-15s.
If we don't want the police to have them, then civilians don't get them. Take away drones from police? Then take them away from civilians. Take handguns away from police? Then take them away from civilians. Wanna take AR-15s away from police? Then take them away from civilians.
Seems fair that we let fire fight fire.
Could lead to fewer murders by police. (Score:2)
If this reduces armed response by the police, I'm all for it.
When police respond to a situation, they often use lethal force when no force is required at all.
It's INTIMIDATION (Score:2)
Who wants to live with police drones overhead 24/7 ?
No thanks.
Police departments should use nukes (Score:2)
Yes, we'll have to shut down our public school system to pay for it, yes, this means I'll die of a heart attack from lack of medical care in a few years, but it's a small price to pay to prevent my stereo from being ripped off...
Tit for Tat? (Score:2)
I wonder how the cops would react if citizens flew their drones over the police stations in that city on a regular basis?
They'd probably be arrested for compromising "officer safety"...
Traffic Control? (Score:2)
No expectation of privacy in public (Score:3)
Use a balaclava if you don't want to be recognized.
Everybody can film you when they are in a public place and they actually do.