Article: The US has new plan to help tackle criminals using drones

[bmaudsley]

This is an article from New Scientist magazine. I havn't noticed any discussion here but it sounds like "terrorists, insurgents and drug cartels" are making things difficult for us! This is the public perception of drones, unfortunately.

The US has a new plan to help tacklecriminals using drones
Current legislation prevents local law enforcement in the US from shooting down or
interfering with criminal drones

The US is hoping to combat the growing criminal use of drones with new rules that will allow local law
enforcement agencies and other organisations to have counter-drone systems.
At present, legal restrictions in the US hamper efforts to tackle such activity. The Federal Aviation
Administration bans anyone from interfering with an aircraft in flight, including drones, while the Federal
Communications Commission forbids jamming radio signals, a common anti-drone technique. Only a few
federal agencies are permitted to shoot down drones in extreme circumstances, such as threats to critical
infrastructure.
US police agencies have been clamouring for counter-drone systems in the face of increasing criminal and
careless use of drones. Drones are routinely used to smuggle drugs over the Mexican border and into
prisons, and have interrupted airport operations on numerous occasions. Swarms of drones have intruded
over US nuclear power plants and sites believed to house nuclear weapons.
On 25 April, the White House announced its Domestic Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems National
Action Plan, which will expand the authority of various agencies including the Department of Homeland
Security, and will set up a pilot counter-drone programme for local law enforcement agencies. It will also
allow critical infrastructure operators to purchase counter-drone systems.
Read more: Drones armed with a small microwave weapon can shoot down other drones
These systems will probably include rifle-like radio-frequency jammers which block communication
between a drone and its operator. These have a longer range and are safer than using guns to down a
drone in populated areas. However, the new US legislation may not provide enough power quickly enough
to deal with a rapidly growing threat. Terrorists, insurgents and drug cartels have been making increased
use of commercial drones armed with improvised explosives since 2015.


The change will bring the US into line with the UK and European Union, where police forces and prison authorities already have the legal power to tackle criminal drones, though generally lack suitable equipment. An EU project to develop the capability to detect and combat undesirable drones should conclude in 2023, but it will take some time for member states to acquire and deploy the recommended sensing and jamming hardware.

“The creation of a nationwide strategy [in the US] is a good development and the plans offer some positive changes, especially around airport protection,” says Zak Kallenborn at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism in Maryland. But he fears that the limited pilot scheme will mean that many local law enforcement agencies will still struggle to tackle criminal drones.

More on these topics:

 

[spsphotos]

Slippery slope....

 

[Nanny Ogg]

Forget about the drones. Prosecute the criminals.

 

[VTOLAIR2]

This is an article from New Scientist magazine. I havn't noticed any discussion here but it sounds like "terrorists, insurgents and drug cartels" are making things difficult for us! This is the public perception of drones, unfortunately.

The US has a new plan to help tacklecriminals using drones
Current legislation prevents local law enforcement in the US from shooting down or
interfering with criminal drones

The US is hoping to combat the growing criminal use of drones with new rules that will allow local law
enforcement agencies and other organisations to have counter-drone systems.
At present, legal restrictions in the US hamper efforts to tackle such activity. The Federal Aviation
Administration bans anyone from interfering with an aircraft in flight, including drones, while the Federal
Communications Commission forbids jamming radio signals, a common anti-drone technique. Only a few
federal agencies are permitted to shoot down drones in extreme circumstances, such as threats to critical
infrastructure.
US police agencies have been clamouring for counter-drone systems in the face of increasing criminal and
careless use of drones. Drones are routinely used to smuggle drugs over the Mexican border and into
prisons, and have interrupted airport operations on numerous occasions. Swarms of drones have intruded
over US nuclear power plants and sites believed to house nuclear weapons.
On 25 April, the White House announced its Domestic Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems National
Action Plan, which will expand the authority of various agencies including the Department of Homeland
Security, and will set up a pilot counter-drone programme for local law enforcement agencies. It will also
allow critical infrastructure operators to purchase counter-drone systems.
Read more: Drones armed with a small microwave weapon can shoot down other drones
These systems will probably include rifle-like radio-frequency jammers which block communication
between a drone and its operator. These have a longer range and are safer than using guns to down a
drone in populated areas. However, the new US legislation may not provide enough power quickly enough
to deal with a rapidly growing threat. Terrorists, insurgents and drug cartels have been making increased
use of commercial drones armed with improvised explosives since 2015.


The change will bring the US into line with the UK and European Union, where police forces and prison authorities already have the legal power to tackle criminal drones, though generally lack suitable equipment. An EU project to develop the capability to detect and combat undesirable drones should conclude in 2023, but it will take some time for member states to acquire and deploy the recommended sensing and jamming hardware.

“The creation of a nationwide strategy [in the US] is a good development and the plans offer some positive changes, especially around airport protection,” says Zak Kallenborn at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism in Maryland. But he fears that the limited pilot scheme will mean that many local law enforcement agencies will still struggle to tackle criminal drones.

More on these topics:

Yeah put it in follow me mode lol

 

[lookout]

Sounds like the old days of the speed radar detectors. They can detect who has a radar gun detector to detect who is shooting a speed radar gun at some random moving object.

 

[Skyryder]

Hmm, based on how little it seem most local law enforcement seem to be with regards to drone laws, shoot it down ask questions later is going to become a lot more rampant.

Cop: He you is that your drone?
Pilot: Yes, it is...but.....

BANK! CRACK, POP!

Pilot: Hey you just shot down my drone!

Cop: Got a call from someone named Karen, said you are spying on her sunbathing nude in her backyard. You are not allowed to fly drones in this town, against the law, invasion of privacy. Lucking I don't arrest you for being a Peeping Tom.

 

[Mrpokey]

Hmm, based on how little it seem most local law enforcement seem to be with regards to drone laws, shoot it down ask questions later is going to become a lot more rampant.

Cop: He you is that your drone?
Pilot: Yes, it is...but.....

BANK! CRACK, POP!

Pilot: Hey you just shot down my drone!

Cop: Got a call from someone named Karen, said you are spying on her sunbathing nude in her backyard. You are not allowed to fly drones in this town, against the law, invasion of privacy. Lucking I don't arrest you for being a Peeping Tom.

It's always about the "terrorists" isn't it?lol

 

[lookout]

It's always about the "terrorists" isn't it?lol

Terrorists r us.

Hmm, based on how little it seem most local law enforcement seem to be with regards to drone laws, shoot it down ask questions later is going to become a lot more rampant.

Cop: He you is that your drone?
Pilot: Yes, it is...but.....

BANK! CRACK, POP!

Pilot: Hey you just shot down my drone!

Cop: Got a call from someone named Karen, said you are spying on her sunbathing nude in her backyard. You are not allowed to fly drones in this town, against the law, invasion of privacy. Lucking I don't arrest you for being a Peeping Tom.

Why isn't it being treated like a peeping Tom if that's what the charge is and there are already laws on the books for that? But since it's a quad it's not considered a peepy tom, but some other undefined law.

But how can you even see the quad from 400' up and is was going somewhere? And we're supposed to be keeping VLOS and not watching that little screen of ours, the little FPV.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

It's always about the "terrorists" isn't it?lol

They certainly have changed our lives, haven’t they ?
Authorities have increased power in so many day to day things that seem far too excessive.
Sometimes the imposts far outweigh the risks.

 

[thispilothere]

Hmm, based on how little it seem most local law enforcement seem to be with regards to drone laws, shoot it down ask questions later is going to become a lot more rampant.

Cop: He you is that your drone?
Pilot: Yes, it is...but.....

BANK! CRACK, POP!

Pilot: Hey you just shot down my drone!

Cop: Got a call from someone named Karen, said you are spying on her sunbathing nude in her backyard. You are not allowed to fly drones in this town, against the law, invasion of privacy. Lucking I don't arrest you for being a Peeping Tom.

Karen called the police to my house claiming I was "watching her children in the backyard." The cop literally said he would shoot it down if it was his kids.

Didn't even stop to wonder if it was true or if shooting it down was legal. A LOT of cops are just tyrants in blue costumes.

The US is hoping to combat the growing criminal use of drones with new rules that will allow local law enforcement agencies and other organisations to have counter-drone systems.

So we're going to use terrorists to restrict drones for everyone. Sounds right. We can call it the Patriot Act II: Electric Boogaloo. Will voters ever learn?

 

[EpicFlight]

Terrorists r us.

Why isn't it being treated like a peeping Tom if that's what the charge is and there are already laws on the books for that? But since it's a quad it's not considered a peepy tom, but some other undefined law..

Quite simply, your expectation of privacy is increasingly limited the greater a degree you expose yourself publicly.

You have no right to privacy from overhead observation in areas open to the sky.

Just as in a completely open, public park you have no right to or expectation of privacy at all. I can stand 10 from you, point my Nikon right at you, being deliberately obvious about it, and take some pictures of you.

Only if it crosses into harassment do you have any right to object. A few pictures doesn't count as harassment.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Quite simply, your expectation of privacy is increasingly limited the greater a degree you expose yourself publicly.

You have no right to privacy from overhead observation in areas open to the sky.

Not so sure about no right to privacy from the air.
I've seen posted things like privacy where it could be expected, a fenced backyard etc.
From the street, if your front curtains are open and people can see in there is no expectation of privacy.

 

[EpicFlight]

Not so sure about no right to privacy from the air.
I've seen posted things like privacy where it could be expected, a fenced backyard etc.
From the street, if your front curtains are open and people can see in there is no expectation of privacy.

Drones, like airplanes and helicopters all have the same legal right to fly over someone's backyard vis a vis privacy. Which basically is, you have none under the law. As is pointed out here ad infinitum, the FAA has jurisdiction over all U.S. airspace, and makes the rules, no matter what any ignorant city council thinks.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Drones, like airplanes and helicopters all have the same legal right to fly over someone's backyard vis a vis privacy. Which basically is, you have none under the law. As is pointed out here ad infinitum, the FAA has jurisdiction over all U.S. airspace, and makes the rules, no matter what any ignorant city council thinks.

Aircraft, fixed wing, helicopter, google maps etc, they are different in terms of a drones ability to be used inappropriately in terms of privacy where one could expect it.

Aircraft are generally higher, often a lot higher, usually going some place and helis not usually hovering unnecessarily.
Google maps only takes a snap shot, and not clear for close range detail.
Google street view can capture 'things' that might infringe on what some feel should be private, and they do blur on request I believe, but anything visible in pubic is usually open to view, photography, etc.

Drones on the other hand are piloted in the main by anyone capable of buying, unboxing, and operating one (pretty simple really), flown at low altitudes (or should be), and obviously the non professional new users can easily get into situations where they would be much more open to privacy invasion situations.

This is why most states have the 'expectation of privacy' clause in various legislation.
Sometimes it includes this specifically for drones, other times it's simply in privacy laws as it should be.

Drone Laws by State - FindLaw

Just like cell phones and the Internet, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or drones, are no longer limited to military or government use. States have responded to the increased air traffic by enacting laws and regulations to govern the use of drones. Learn more about drone laws, and related topics...

www.findlaw.com

An example of US definition of invasion of privacy . . .

What Is Invasion of Privacy?

An overview on the different types of invasion of privacy and the benefits of filing a lawsuit.

www.findlaw.com

"Intrusion upon seclusion laws protect your right to privacy while you are in solitude or seclusion. This right extends to you or your private affairs."

A backyard fenced from any available street view for sure, but it has to be tested in a court on individual circumstances.
There probably are some examples of such cases around.

 

[lookout]

Quite simply, your expectation of privacy is increasingly limited the greater a degree you expose yourself publicly.

You have no right to privacy from overhead observation in areas open to the sky.

Just as in a completely open, public park you have no right to or expectation of privacy at all. I can stand 10 from you, point my Nikon right at you, being deliberately obvious about it, and take some pictures of you.

Only if it crosses into harassment do you have any right to object. A few pictures doesn't count as harassment.

That's what the news helicopter guy says too. They fly in federal airspace above 400' (sometimes) and no expectation of privacy. Guess it must change for a quad that can claim the same.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

That's what the news helicopter guy says too. They fly in federal airspace above 400' (sometimes) and no expectation of privacy. Guess it must change for a quad that can claim the same.

I think technically they should be flying 500' AGL (manned aircraft separation) and there's far less detail than you'd get with a drone flying under 400', or at least as close to to the ground as one can fly safely your drone.
Besides, if a heli hovered over someone's place at 500' for any undue time, you can bet someone would be getting some bother about it.

So anyone that would think it's ok to not expect privacy from the air would be happy to have a drone flying over their backyard, and not just a quick pass on the way somewhere else, but hovering, perhaps recording, certainly posing potential danger to those underneath ?
Besides this, the plain inconsideration of perhaps ruining the relaxing atmosphere of a quiet family Sunday afternoon bbq, or whatever one of your family might be doing in the backyard anytime ?

No, I would think not.
I fly with consideration, and expect the same from anyone else coming near to, or on / over my property.

 

[lookout]

I think technically they should be flying 500' AGL (manned aircraft separation) and there's far less detail than you'd get with a drone flying under 400', or at least as close to to the ground as one can fly safely your drone.
Besides, if a heli hovered over someone's place at 500' for any undue time, you can bet someone would be getting some bother about it.

So anyone that would think it's ok to not expect privacy from the air would be happy to have a drone flying over their backyard, and not just a quick pass on the way somewhere else, but hovering, perhaps recording, certainly posing potential danger to those underneath ?
Besides this, the plain inconsideration of perhaps ruining the relaxing atmosphere of a quiet family Sunday afternoon bbq, or whatever one of your family might be doing in the backyard anytime ?

No, I would think not.
I fly with consideration, and expect the same from anyone else coming near to, or on / over my property.

There's a difference between an observer on the ground and an observer from above and this is where the rift (deliberate or unattended) comes from. So I wish the fake news would quit distorting things in more ways than one (oh no they're looking in my bedroom window). If from a distance coming down below line of sight or RF would possibly lose control of the quad. An airplane at cruise altitude looks over maybe 20 miles of real estate easy. Have to be determined to hit a specific spot on the ground while moving. The cars on the interstate look like ants. Terrestrial optics are good for about half a mile before degrading. Helicopter at low altitude is kinda limited also. And that is clear optics. CCD or something inferior is even less than that. It may store a large object instead of a bright object. They have go at least 1080p to start having something decent. 4k is just a start against the 35mm. The focus is usually at infinity. My eyes do the looking around, but the camera does a better job of keeping a straight face. Quad is better than getting on the ladder.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

There's a difference between an observer on the ground and an observer from above and this is where the rift (deliberate or unattended) comes from. So I wish the fake news would quit distorting things in more ways than one (oh no they're looking in my bedroom window).

It's not fake news, it's just most folk are oblivious to the facts about our tiny drone cameras and their abilities (or lack of).

WE know that our general hobbyist drones are pretty useless at seeing anything in details from all but a close distance.
The general public that report what they perceive as privacy invasion don't.
I feel even a judge in a court of law would have to be shown just how ridiculous most claims would be.

One would hope a drone pilot that is reported or investigated for something like this would have the ability, knowledge, skills to do this at first intervention level, be it law enforcement or some sort of city official.

 

[LoudThunder]

I've seen posted things like privacy where it could be expected, a fenced backyard etc.

Ok, these postings deal primarily with the privacy rights of folks in their yards, behind fences, in the US. However, in Japan, about 15-years back, Google Cars, with their high mounted cameras could peer over the fences and Google had to wipe all those images and reshoot all the Street Views with a lower mounted camera.

Google reshoots Japan views after privacy complaints...

On a more personal note, when I lived in Tucson, AZ. '98 to '01, I lived in a subdivision that was run by a bunch of (I'll not use the words, but you can guess what I might have written) folks who ruled the subdivision with an iron hand…

One of the Subdivision Construction Tenants stipulated that all yards would be enclosed by a 6-foot wall. By happen stance, one of the wall surrounding one yard was made a bit short, the back was 6' (Arrow #1), then it dropped down to 5' *Arrow #2), and then down to 4' (Arrow #3). The folks who bought it new, never voiced any issues about it and apparently it went unnoticed. (Photo is from Google Street View…)



A couple of years later, the house sold to a new owner who put in a swimming pool and their teenage daughters soon started having oglers leering over the fence making snide and crude comments to their daughters. The HOA has some "written in stone" rules about making any changes to any structures within the subdivision and when the family applied to raise the wall, the HOA refused. It went to court and the HOA won… Yes, the wall was built too short (contrary to the construction tenants), but the HOA's rules about making any changes to the structure was completely in the hands of the HOA's Building Committee.

The court upheld the HOA's refusal to allow the wall to be built to the original specifications and awarded court and legal expenses to the HOA for having to fight a "frivolous law suit…"

Epilog: The HOA rules also prevented the owners from putting up any type of structure within their yard such as parabola and cover it with plants. One thing the HOA could not control was the installations of a child play set with swing, slide, etc… And I suggested that they do that even their teenage daughters were a bit old… But by then, they were so fed up, they sold their house and left.

 

[Daytona500]

I agree that if local law enforcement is given equipment to bring down drones it will get out of hand. First look at the 1st amendment video's on you tube, and how many cops have no regard for the law, they just arrest people for doing nothing wrong, filming from a public area is a constitutionally protected activity, yet some cops just don't care and say screw the law and arrest these people.
Another thing People who say helicopters if hovering to close to a back yard would get reported well sure, but the cameras some of these copters have can zoom in close up from a mile away.How would anyone know what they were looking at.