Drones in US. Ugh. What's next?
- Thread starter Fotogr4
- Start date
... and the problem is?
They're massively cost effective, can safely maintain lower altitudes for longer periods without putting crewmember's or pilots lives at risk, rapid response time, typically operate much lower than safe or authorized piloted aircraft are allowed via the FAA anyway (deconfliction) and in reality, are not used ANY different from a regular police (or even news) helicopter is.
They're massively cost effective, can safely maintain lower altitudes for longer periods without putting crewmember's or pilots lives at risk, rapid response time, typically operate much lower than safe or authorized piloted aircraft are allowed via the FAA anyway (deconfliction) and in reality, are not used ANY different from a regular police (or even news) helicopter is.
AMCM Disco said:
and will probably be way to expensive for anybody to afford for at least the next 50 years.
Uh, the first point is cost effective. These things range from what the FL po po is already using - a little drone depoyed for SWAT that's the size of your front seat and has on station time in a hover for like 4-5 hours.
They'd cost a fraction of just what a used airframe, let alone any FLIR mods or comm sets on a police chopper, not even factoring annual maintenance, crew costs, fuel costs, hangars, etc...
They'd cost a fraction of just what a used airframe, let alone any FLIR mods or comm sets on a police chopper, not even factoring annual maintenance, crew costs, fuel costs, hangars, etc...
google already tracks us 24/7 so i could give two shits if they want to catch an aerial view of me barbecuing in the back yard.
AMCM Disco said:
Sorry I should have said general public. I think most people would be worried about civilians having them not the people who already have all of the power
and I agree if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?
I think we've seen a lot of our privacy rights dwindle lately, and I find that very concerning. There's been shit happening in this country that would never fly in Europe (C.A.M.P. for example), and it's only getting worse.
Cost-effective and less-limited drones will mean MORE surveillance, more often. As for right now, I know that when the SDPD breaks out the chopper, something big is going down. With drones, they can use them even for basic patrolling, and that makes me uneasy - as I believe it does most of you. This doesn't mean we "have something to hide". The desire for privacy is not an implication of guilt.
The question of private enterprise watching us is a valid one too - we already let companies run wild with our info and there are very few laws to protect consumers, unlike in Europe where Privacy is considered a Human Right.
I'm not some anti-government paranoid, I have a lot of respect for our PD and everyone who serves the community and the nation, but I think that power unchecked is a dangerous thing, and that information is power.
Cost-effective and less-limited drones will mean MORE surveillance, more often. As for right now, I know that when the SDPD breaks out the chopper, something big is going down. With drones, they can use them even for basic patrolling, and that makes me uneasy - as I believe it does most of you. This doesn't mean we "have something to hide". The desire for privacy is not an implication of guilt.
The question of private enterprise watching us is a valid one too - we already let companies run wild with our info and there are very few laws to protect consumers, unlike in Europe where Privacy is considered a Human Right.
I'm not some anti-government paranoid, I have a lot of respect for our PD and everyone who serves the community and the nation, but I think that power unchecked is a dangerous thing, and that information is power.
Whoa there Newsom, use of drones for police action does not imply that our right for privacy is now void. It's a tool the PD's can use when conducting a proper and warrented surveillance.
There's also measures being looked at for the FAA to clear the way for regular civilian uav use... for what I don't know. Maybe private enterprise such as communications, power companies, ranchers/farmers...
There's also measures being looked at for the FAA to clear the way for regular civilian uav use... for what I don't know. Maybe private enterprise such as communications, power companies, ranchers/farmers...
AMCM Disco said:
Tell it to the aircraft equipped with heat-sensitive cameras that look for grow-houses without a warrant, and limited-spectrum cameras that look for grow patches on private property in northern cali - it's been going on for years, and lower costs just means its going to happen MORE now.
I'm fine with giving our PD the tools they need to do their jobs - when properly used with a warrant. You think anyone is going to stop them from using drones without one?
As for what private industry is going to do with them, I dunno - but I'd definitely feel a lot better about this if there was some sort of measure preventing the caching of visual data via drone within 1000 feet of a private residence without a warrant.
That's an obvious mis-use of tools and invasion of privacy which is illegal and not admissable in any court that I know of. If they are using those cameras for searches like that then either 1) there must be a statute that allows such activity, or 2) nobody's gathered evidence and fried them in either court or the media.
I can't believe if it's been going on for years as common knowledge, even in California, that it's being done illegally.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
But there's always that chance. You should spearhead the campaign to ensure privacy rights are not being invaded by such blatent uses. <o></o>
Just because of a few instances of misuse does not mean that using this would absolve us of our rights.<o></o>
I can't believe if it's been going on for years as common knowledge, even in California, that it's being done illegally.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o> But there's always that chance. You should spearhead the campaign to ensure privacy rights are not being invaded by such blatent uses. <o
></o>Just because of a few instances of misuse does not mean that using this would absolve us of our rights.<o
></o>
Oh, how I wish it was an isolated incident and that I was simply mistaken about this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Against_Marijuana_Planting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
At this point we'll need a constitutional privacy amendment. ...and a provision requiring drones not to cache visual data within a certain distance of a residence or business.
...we are seriously boned, dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Against_Marijuana_Planting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
At this point we'll need a constitutional privacy amendment. ...and a provision requiring drones not to cache visual data within a certain distance of a residence or business.
...we are seriously boned, dude.
Both sides have very valid points. It's a fine line with multiple interpretations and possibilities, both good and bad. One report I saw on TV talked about weaponizing the drones for domestic use (and specifically to eliminate US citizens in alignment with al-Qaeda working here in the US). Acceptable or scary? I'm not saying it's good or bad necessarily, just questioning the possible direction. Time will tell if the benefits overcome the negatives and vice versa, or what level of surveillance/privacy will be accepted by the public. See Overton's Window...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
mgreenspan said:
What part of "police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace" did you not understand? Or did you not read them?
Seriously, what exactly is unclear about this?
Anything that can be seen from public airspace is the same thing as anything that can be seen from the street... or maybe a street on a large hill next to your house. Just as it's legal for people to use cameras to spy on Area 51 is it legal for the po po to use a camera to look at your property. Now the evidence gathered has to run through legal channels of collection to be admissable, let alone that the entire case can be blown up if original warrents/capture was based on illegally captured evidence.
I simply don't see your argument that there's currently illegal invasion of privacy by law enforcement using aircraft.
I simply don't see your argument that there's currently illegal invasion of privacy by law enforcement using aircraft.