Drones threaten Civil Rights!

[DoomMeister]

I was only referring to the presenters statiing that some members of the civilian population would determine that the drones following them would be a breach of privacy laws

I can’t see how that would differ from LE placing a “tail” on you. Either one is going to require ‘just cause’.

What would cause a breach of privacy is tailing a person without just cause.

I agree with you on the cameras. I don’t understand why people get uptight about a camera on a drone, but visit banks, stores, restaurants, and walk down streets that have security cameras everywhere. That doesn’t even count people’s cell phones, dash cams, Go Pros, etc. that are constantly recording images.

 

[Herbie D]

Just watching CNN on TV here in the UK and a report about police using drones to catch (suspected) criminals.
It seems that it could be the opening of a big 'can of worms'!
I would be very interested in what our American 'cousins' think.

It was always going to happen some time, especially with the amount of CCTV cameras in the UK.
As always, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about.
i don’t worry about the extra security at the airport because it lessens the chance of something bad happening to me.

 

[maelstrom]

It's very plausible that the evidence of the actual execution (although it would not be "needed" technically but it is solid evidence) could be tossed out because the WARRANT had not specifically stated anything about the UAS specifically.

If this was an actual case, was the evidence "tossed out"?

 

[BigAl07]

If this was an actual case, was the evidence "tossed out"?

No that was a hypothetical scenario that came up in one of our conference calls with the NC Dept of Justice in early 2020.

 

[BigAl07]

FAA Regulations​

Two major FAA regulations are obstacles to the use of autonomous UAV technology: Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flight, and Detect and Avoidance (DAA). The BVLOS regulation states that a pilot must keep the UAV in visual line of sight at all times while in flight, thus preventing the possible of any autonomous or remotely directed flights.4  The FAA recognizes this regulation needs to be relaxed for the continued advancement of autonomous UAV technology. However, crash avoidance technologies such as Detect and Avoidance would need to be further developed and tested in order for the FAA to authorize autonomous UAV flights. With manned aircraft, a fail-safe is already built in with a human pilot being able to “see and avoid” if necessary. With unmanned aircraft, the pilot is on the ground or, in the case of autonomous UAVs, there is no pilot at all to “see and avoid” and take evasive action. Currently, “sense and avoid” technology is being developed to allow UAVs to talk to each other and sense and avoid when other aircraft come to close.5 To help the technology move forward, the FAA has already granted several exemptions to Amazon to develop technology and methods so they can make their autonomous “Prime Air” deliveries a reality. Police might be able to gain similar allowances if they join others to advocate for an expansion of these exemptions for public safety testing and deployment.

For "Swat/Law Enforcement" it's not necessarily flying crazy long distances etc. The Operator could very well be just behind a partition/wall and keeping eyes on the aircraft but hidden from the criminal's view.

 

[JohnnyChicago]

This is NOT a correct statement. I have just concluded conversation with FAA (via email presentation of your posting (minus any/all identifying data)). The FAA expressly denies any such occurrences. They further suggested that perhaps you may have been thinking of the DOJ. However, they (FAA) were quick to remind me the DOJ does NOT control the US airspace! FAA further suggests you may have had your sources mixed.

I insist that you disregard what I said about the FAA. I no longer support that statement. I regret posting that. I don't want, nor do I need to defend it. I cannot delete it, however.

 

[BigAl07]

I insist that you disregard what I said about the FAA. I no longer support that statement. I regret posting that. I don't want, nor do I need to defend it. I cannot delete it, however.

I "edited it" and put a disclaimer on it for you. Hopefully this will help quiet the responses bout it

 

[vindibona1]

Drones to catch criminals seems a lot more benign than the current craze of some municipalities: Speed cams, and their more clandestine cousins, the license plate and facial recognition scanners.

 

[aidan]

Just watching CNN on TV here in the UK and a report about police using drones to catch (suspected) criminals.
It seems that it could be the opening of a big 'can of worms'!
I would be very interested in what our American 'cousins' think.

Police here in the US are already using drones to catch criminals. I just heard this story a few weeks ago. It’s happening just one city over from mine: Waltham Police Offer $5,000 Reward for Serial Attacker, Increase Patrols

 

[spsphotos]

What’s wrong with LE using drones to catch criminals .
Really see no can of worms opened.

The only ones who would even be bothered by this are people who should be. Criminals. Saw a vid where they used a drone to go into an apartment to seek out a violent suspect....he was hiding...soon as he heard the drone and the police telling him to come out he surrendered peacefully...no one put in danger. So I don't see any issue with them. But like ANY tech, it does have the ability to be abused. But, that's not a reason not to use it, just a reason to make sure there is proper oversight of the use.

 

[maelstrom]

Drones to catch criminals seems a lot more benign than the current craze of some municipalities: Speed cams, and their more clandestine cousins, the license plate and facial recognition scanners.

But, in most cases, these are only needed because people can’t be trusted to obey the law without them. I saw a great quote recently which summed up freedom and rights perfectly:

“Insisting on one's rights without recognizing one's responsibilities is not freedom. It’s adolescence.”

 

[vindibona1]

But, in most cases, these are only needed because people can’t be trusted to obey the law without them. I saw a great quote recently which summed up freedom and rights perfectly:

“Insisting on one's rights without recognizing one's responsibilities is not freedom. It’s adolescence.”

You bring up an interesting point, one that I think has become my theme to harp on. Without getting political (but philosophical) I believe that BECAUSE we rely on laws and rules and other external authoritiarian"thou shalt nots" we have relieve a lot of people of their indvidual responsibilties and making good judgements on their own. And in doing so, often those restrictions are extended to areas, both georgraphically and conceptually where they are not needed. And it cuts both ways. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. And so people push the boundaries far beyond their moral obligations to the edge of their legal ones, doing things that they know aren't right- but can get away with. For me, I'd rather be charged with responsibility than have freedoms taken away bit by bit. And as we can see in so many instances, the incremental loss of those freedoms is encompassed by the quote "Coffee leads to donuts. Donuts leads to ants".

 

[Firejay27]

Police here will use drones to survey an area while waiting for the helicopter. Much faster to launch a drone from the back of a police unit then wait for the helo to fly in. Happened in my area not to long ago. Potential hostage situation and they maintained their distance and flew a drone over the house in question to take a look around. Helo showed up about 30 minutes later.

 

[maelstrom]

Without getting political (but philosophical) I believe that BECAUSE we rely on laws and rules and other external authoritiarian"thou shalt nots" we have relieve a lot of people of their indvidual responsibilties and making good judgements on their own.

Even with rules, people still ignore what they don’t want to accept - speed limits are a perfect example of this. At least the rules make them think twice before they do it and they know the potential consequences of breaking the law.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

But it still makes it legal! Laws don’t depend on whether or not you agree with them or think they shouldn’t apply to you.

For me, I'd rather be charged with responsibility than have freedoms taken away bit by bit.

If there’s no penalty for a particular action, you can guarantee that most people won’t think twice about the consequences of doing it. It’s not necessarily because they’re irresponsible but mainly because they may just not fully think through the possible chain of events which could ensue because of their actions.

 

[RussDrone]

I don't feel anyone should restrict a drone because of what it "might" do. That's called "drone phobia" and is no grounds for restriction of drone flight. On the other hand, when a drone does do something that in anyway injures another, the act itself, not the general flying of drones, should be dealt with.

 

[maelstrom]

I don't feel anyone should restrict a drone because of what it "might" do. That's called "drone phobia" and is no grounds for restriction of drone flight. On the other hand, when a drone does do something that in anyway injures another, the act itself, not the general flying of drones, should be dealt with.

Many (most?) rules and regulations in aviation exist in order to try to prevent catastrophes, not as a result of them. If you recognise that some action could potentially cause a death, would you really be prepared to allow it to happen before introducing regulations to prevent it?

Which of the existing rules do you think unreasonably restrict what you feel you should be allowed to do with your drone?

 

[anotherlab]

I don't feel anyone should restrict a drone because of what it "might" do. That's called "drone phobia" and is no grounds for restriction of drone flight. On the other hand, when a drone does do something that in anyway injures another, the act itself, not the general flying of drones, should be dealt with.

The intent is not to penalize actions that cause harm, but to prevent them from happening in the first place.

 

[Goin Up]

Actually, there is a web site that addresses this issue.

Law enforcement drone policy

With the increased use of drones both by civilians and government agencies, it’s essential for your police department to craft effective drone policies.

www.powerdms.com

However, each state has their own policy. FAA regulates the air space, state government regulates law enforcement policy and procedure. For example, here in my favorite home state of FL, there is a statute that addresses and outlines LE use of drones: Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine The language of that statute; (3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.
(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent* to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent.
*With the intent.. is the key phrase here. If you pass over your neighbor's house, and are in FAA regulated airspace (above 100' MOL), to be in violation, that complaining neighbor must show that you "INTENDED" to conduct survelliance on them or their property
(4) EXCEPTIONS.—This section does not prohibit the use of a drone:
(a) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.
(b) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.
(c) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person.

 

[bcfd29]

Responding to a complaint requesting police services or a 911 call is not in any way surveillance, and small UAV’S are nothing more than a force multiplier for patrol and response activities. There is no expectation of privacy in this case and no rights are infringed upon.

Most of the coverage I have seen as well as the trade publications I have read treat a UAV as no more or less than a sensor platform that permits greater situational awareness during an emergency or crime in progress and adds an extra margin of safety to both public safety practitioners and the public that we serve. In several instances, it has allowed for ongoing and accurate threat assessment to better permit good decision making by responding resources.

Surveilance is a different activity and infers the surreptitious observation of a person or place so that the target is unaware of their being observed.

The FAA manages and mandates operational safety and efficiency in the airspace they regulate, and has nothing to do with these types of issues other than to ensure the safety of other aircraft , airspace users, and the people on the ground.

 

[Giovanni]

Just watching CNN on TV here in the UK and a report about police using drones to catch (suspected) criminals.
It seems that it could be the opening of a big 'can of worms'!
I would be very interested in what our American 'cousins' think.

We're talking about catching criminals. They can borrow any of my drones anytime.