"Curbs Needed on Police Drone Surveillance of Public Gatherings" document by ACLU (March 14, 2024)
- Thread starter mavic3usa
- Start date
Around the Los Angeles area and even down the mountains here in Bakersfield the police Depts are starting to rely more and more heavily on Drones. One big complaint from the public- Noise.
A Helicopter makes a dandy police tool BUT its a tool that announces its arrival with a thump-thump-thump and a blinding light. Drones won't wake up the voters, SO as soon as the feds put down their science fiction and come back down to reality We will be seeing more and more Drones in police Depts.
Last year they were used to "Monitor and spot illegal Fireworks" Next year who knows?
The thing is though Today if you are in public the reality is you are being videoed more than you are not being videoed. while some expectation of privacy should be expected that window is closing for you while you are in public. Kinda scary really.
A Helicopter makes a dandy police tool BUT its a tool that announces its arrival with a thump-thump-thump and a blinding light. Drones won't wake up the voters, SO as soon as the feds put down their science fiction and come back down to reality We will be seeing more and more Drones in police Depts.
Last year they were used to "Monitor and spot illegal Fireworks" Next year who knows?
The thing is though Today if you are in public the reality is you are being videoed more than you are not being videoed. while some expectation of privacy should be expected that window is closing for you while you are in public. Kinda scary really.
Try living in Britain. For a 'democratic state' we have been recognised for a few years now as being the most heavily electronically surveilled country in the world. France was the first to deploy camera drones as crowd surveillance tools during the public demonstrations over the introduction of their newest Security Bill.
It strikes me that governments all over the world see camera drones as being the perfect Orwellian surveillance device and would prefer to be the only ones capable of taking 'covert' photographs and video while denying all us plebs the right to take pictures and video of our own.
Published European Union documentation covering the regulation of drone use is quite an accurate barometer regarding this, over and over again: concerns cited revolve around words like 'safety', 'security' and 'data protection' instead of citing potential threat of injury to life and limb as a valid reason for regulatory constraints.
It strikes me that governments all over the world see camera drones as being the perfect Orwellian surveillance device and would prefer to be the only ones capable of taking 'covert' photographs and video while denying all us plebs the right to take pictures and video of our own.
Published European Union documentation covering the regulation of drone use is quite an accurate barometer regarding this, over and over again: concerns cited revolve around words like 'safety', 'security' and 'data protection' instead of citing potential threat of injury to life and limb as a valid reason for regulatory constraints.
It's called "over watch", and a very legitimate need.
Look at what happened during the Super Bowl parade in KC. Of course cops need every tool in the tool box to help keep people safe.
ACLU tends to take a very radical stance on many things. And in this case, they don't know what they're talking about. We need these drones in the air these days. The assist in keeping gatherings safe, and are force multipliers when used by those in charge of security.
Yeah, ACLU looks bad here. Their stance on "The likelihood of disorder" has already been proven wrong in KC.
Look at what happened during the Super Bowl parade in KC. Of course cops need every tool in the tool box to help keep people safe.
ACLU tends to take a very radical stance on many things. And in this case, they don't know what they're talking about. We need these drones in the air these days. The assist in keeping gatherings safe, and are force multipliers when used by those in charge of security.
Yeah, ACLU looks bad here. Their stance on "The likelihood of disorder" has already been proven wrong in KC.
I don't think anyone is upset or hurt of the good use cases for drones, it's the abuse and misuse we are concerned about. If law enforcement is willing to curtail their use of drone to "legitimate" purposes then no problem. However, we already know that isn't the case. They won't be able to help themselves and ultimately instead of using their resources to fight violent crime, they'll spend their time collecting data on agitators and activists, building lists of protestors, following out of towners, and basically intimidating anyone who voices their opinion. How do I know this? Try to pass a law that says no law enforcement drone can be deployed against an individual citizen without a search warrant so you are forced to have probable cause. Try to pass a law that says drone footage cannot be indefinitely blocked from the public so there is at least some transparency. Try to pass a law that says only suspects who commit violent felonies can be aggressively chased by a drone. Try to pass a law that says law enforcement drone usage must be reported monthly. The pushback will be astounding. Why? Because instead of trying to locate a shooter in the crowd or uncovering a plot of human traffickers, the drones will spend their time doing this (because all police equipment starts out fighting crime until it is eventually converted and begin to be used against the law-abiding citizens):
I think the NYC events over the past year are great examples. The mayor had a press conference (which I watched in full and won't repost the various news reports here) and he claimed NYC was introducing drones and he outlined the various uses from infrastructure to first responder to homeland security. He basically sold drones to the city with noble causes no one can argue against and which were likely nearly 100% supported. But he left a lot of it out because it would raise red flags.
In record time, because there were no laws in place to carefully regulate the use of drones, he was deploying drones to labor day house parties to spy on residents. He claimed the drones would get there faster than his squad cars and he also said they were in response to calls for service. In reality, he was looking for drug and alcohol use, he's looking for people with warrants, and other things that ordinary patrols won't easily discover. He testing the drones to see how well they perform against the citizens. If he had mentioned this during his speech, I think it would be different. Perhaps he can have another press conference and let the citizen know how he plans to use drone for memorial day and over the summer. It's going to be a shocker. We know how this goes, just look at other countries like FR and UK.
I guess we'll all find out if there is a major police incident and the residents exercise their rights to redress their government by protesting. Do you agree we should pass a state law that says a law enforcement agency must first get a warrant to deploy drones at a peaceful protest and under no circumstances will the faces or identifying information (of cars, etc) be collected or gathered or retained by drones within a 10 miles square area around the protest?
No. Not at all. I also believe anyone has a right to fly a drone within legal airspace and not interfere with first responders and LE. In addition to the fact that the FAA controls/regulates airspace and has sole jurisdiction, the 1st amendment provides the right to photograph and video in public places. This begs the question, "Why would a search warrant be necessary to fly a drone over a 'public' demonstration? where there is no expectation of privacy in public.
With that said, if someone videos you and where to place it on a social media platform you may have recourse there. Otherwise, there has been nothing illegal done.
No one was searched and nothing was seized. The 4th amendment would not apply to your conversation.
What's the difference? Your argument would require a search warrant for this case as well.
I'm sorry but I can't follow your thinking on the matter. Therefore, no point in my discussing this further with you.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reactions
- 2,374
Some states do prohibit use of drones by law enforcement to conduct surveillance without a warrant. Here is an example from North Dakota. Of course, law enforcement has wriggle room in defining what is and is not surveillance or is an exception for "exigent circumstances" and the like. Notice that records are supposed to be kept documenting every single surveillance flight.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reactions
- 2,374
One potential issue pointed out by the ACLU is the First Amendment protects right of free speech and right to peaceably assemble. When the government is conducting mass surveillance with no probable cause on everyone in attendance at a particular meeting, parade or other assembly, its a potential violation especially when government is retaining every single photo and video and running image recognition programs to identify everyone present.
FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's not an easy topic to discuss and I'm not a lawyer so please bear with me. When I think of the 4th amendment, it's in relationship to applying rules to the government that don't apply to the people. There should be more restrictions on the police where the same restrictions don't necessarily apply to you and me.
Without reading the exact details of the WI law, I like what it is doing. It allows LE to use the drone to fight crime, not surveil or monitor or intimidate the people. Use a drone at a parade makes the people feel safer. Use a drone at a political rally doesn't make the people feel safer. If the political rally starts to turn violent, go to a judge and get a warrant if you want to deploy the drones (in the meantime officers and horses and police cars and all your other resources are at your disposal). And when you deploy that drone at the political rally, you will be authorized to fight the violence, not collecting faces and taking pictures of protestor's car and following people who are leaving. When the violence is over, any drone data that is not related to an open investigation is destroyed; not collected on a list and shared within the community.
Instead of every jurisdiction have a separate law covering these details, let's have federal laws that covers everybody and everything so everyone will know and play by the rules. Otherwise, it may get out of hand.
Without reading the exact details of the WI law, I like what it is doing. It allows LE to use the drone to fight crime, not surveil or monitor or intimidate the people. Use a drone at a parade makes the people feel safer. Use a drone at a political rally doesn't make the people feel safer. If the political rally starts to turn violent, go to a judge and get a warrant if you want to deploy the drones (in the meantime officers and horses and police cars and all your other resources are at your disposal). And when you deploy that drone at the political rally, you will be authorized to fight the violence, not collecting faces and taking pictures of protestor's car and following people who are leaving. When the violence is over, any drone data that is not related to an open investigation is destroyed; not collected on a list and shared within the community.
Instead of every jurisdiction have a separate law covering these details, let's have federal laws that covers everybody and everything so everyone will know and play by the rules. Otherwise, it may get out of hand.
If you see a "Police" drone at your rally that you believe to be taking pictures or videos, You do have the right under the law to ask for those photos and videos thru the Freedom of information act. If they refuse you simply apply to a judge and then that judge will ask for cause.
I can see the advantages of using drones in a crowded environment such as a Rally. I can also see that this would be wide open to abuse.
I suppose the only thing you could do is inform the public and keep a vigilant eye on our elected officials.
After all if we want the right to fly where and when we want to - We must expect our government to have the same right. (Barring abuse of course).
I can see the advantages of using drones in a crowded environment such as a Rally. I can also see that this would be wide open to abuse.
I suppose the only thing you could do is inform the public and keep a vigilant eye on our elected officials.
After all if we want the right to fly where and when we want to - We must expect our government to have the same right. (Barring abuse of course).
BobaFut
Well-Known Member
Over watch? Might want to lay off the Call of Duty bud. It's celebratory parades and lawful protests in the US not the Battle of Fallujah.
KC was a couple of teens getting into a beef and 800 cops on the ground couldn't stop it. How many more tools do the cops need?
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reactions
- 2,374
Here is why that is a problem. Every state has its own Constitution which in some cases provides more privacy protection than the US Constitution/Fourth Amendment and every state has the right to enact its own laws limiting when and how drones may be used by law enforcement to conduct surveillance.
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Advice Please! My 2s needs repair should I sell, repair, buy new?- Started by Greatsign1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
