Illinois police can now fly over people at events

[MAvic_South_Oz]

..
Interesting article in The Verge . . .

Illinois now lets cops fly drones over events — but not with weapons or facial recognition

Only the headline and a single line in the article really states this, with most of the article concentrating on what police CAN'T do with their drones.

Something called the First Responders Act some states have / will sign onto.
Will other first responders also have this ability ?

 

[mavic3usa]

We all can see the direction these laws/rules are heading. They're going in the opposite direction from non-pubic safety drone flyers. As our rules get tighter, theirs get less and less. It won't be long before weapon usage is common and soon after AI and face recognition and detectors of sorts. It's impossible to destroy data so I don't even know what it means to prohibit long term data collection, that's ridiculous. None of it is really enforceable because IL has no control over Chicago and Cook County anyway. Imagine this while at the same time, completely and finally destroying the 2nd amendment rights of everyone in the state. IL is about the worst state in the country not on a coast when it comes to being a police state.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

I see things headed in a different direction , similar to how Forum Monitors devote there time and energy and awareness to keeping threads in line, , the same is coming for drones pilots.

The day is coming when places like Disnery and Cedar Point will be allowing drones to keep there grounds safer.

Cameras on the Poles will be replaced with the Watchers to aid police , fire on the streets as in the forest, an I feel like they may have used a little reverse phsychology with drones until people were ready to welcome them.

Imagine a sign that says this is a Drone Friendly event walk in peace, as many as 20 Drones can be in the sky , do not touch the animals nor the drones.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water. and keep the peace in the rain

 

[Vic Moss]

Clarification:

This bill does not give LEOs in IL the right to fly over "people at events", it gives them the right to fly over events (but not the people at the event). That's a huge difference.

If the want to fly over people, they'll need to have a waiver or OOP Categorized drone. Only the FAA can approve those types of operations.

 

[JohnnyChicago]

..
Interesting article in The Verge . . .

Illinois now lets cops fly drones over events — but not with weapons or facial recognition

Only the headline and a single line in the article really states this, with most of the article concentrating on what police CAN'T do with their drones.

Something called the First Responders Act some states have / will sign onto.
Will other first responders also have this ability ?

I'm an Illinois resident and have looked over this law as it has been reported in the press. The provisions seem reasonable to me. Having the prohibition of stored images and other surveillance data by sworn officers clearly outlined is essential in building community trust and awareness about the limits of police authority.

 

[Chip]

We all can see the direction these laws/rules are heading. They're going in the opposite direction from non-pubic safety drone flyers. As our rules get tighter, theirs get less and less. It won't be long before weapon usage is common and soon after AI and face recognition and detectors of sorts. It's impossible to destroy data so I don't even know what it means to prohibit long term data collection, that's ridiculous.

Yes exactly.

 

[GFields]

Illinois now lets cops

The state doesn't control nor can they implement laws dealing with the air space. Only the FAA

 

[Chip]

The state doesn't control nor can they implement laws dealing with the air space. Only the FAA

Does the FAA not kowtow to law enforcement every chance it gets? My recollection is the FAA's rationale for Remote ID broadcasting pilot location was that "law enforcement wants it that way." No reasoned analysis, just law enforcement wants it that way, so that is how it will be.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The state doesn't control nor can they implement laws dealing with the air space. Only the FAA

Yes, and that's one thing I found odd about the article, just how limited the info was about the headline tag 'allowed to fly over people'.
Either they have FAA approval, or they don't.

Illinois state maybe thinks it can allow 'first responders' to overfly people, and (without even knowing exactly where this First Responders Act has come from) sign up and allow to do so in times where it's 'needed' in the public interest.

And I wonder does it include FR's like fire depts, medical teams, S&R etc to do the same ?
Put a drone up to assist fire fighting ops, find injured or missing people ?

The story itself was just too vague and wondered if anyone here had more behind the headline info.

 

[Felix le Chat]

The state doesn't control nor can they implement laws dealing with the air space. Only the FAA

But the State has to ratify and pass into Law those airspace regulations, so yes, at the gritty end of the stick: government does control what happens in airspace, that is why it's defined as a "State asset".
What is becoming increasingly clear is that none of the aviation authorities either side of the Atlantic WANT recreational drone use, the only profit for them lies in the commercial licensing of sub-400' airspace. Rec UAV pilots are the same nuisance to them as the unregulated owners of private light aircraft were during the 1940's.

 

[Davros007]

We all can see the direction these laws/rules are heading. They're going in the opposite direction from non-pubic safety drone flyers. As our rules get tighter, theirs get less and less. It won't be long before weapon usage is common and soon after AI and face recognition and detectors of sorts. It's impossible to destroy data so I don't even know what it means to prohibit long term data collection, that's ridiculous. None of it is really enforceable because IL has no control over Chicago and Cook County anyway. Imagine this while at the same time, completely and finally destroying the 2nd amendment rights of everyone in the state. IL is about the worst state in the country not on a coast when it comes to being a police state.

“Non-pubic safety drone flyers”? Eek. Drones and anything pubic is a recipe for painful disaster!

 

[TheCaptain]

Here’s the deal:

Illinois has the “Drone Surveillance Act” which completely prevents police from using drones without a search warrant, unless looking for an endangered missing person, or AFTER a terrorist attack.

The new law you see here is a reaction to the mass shooting that occurred last 4th of July in Highland Park.

The new law allows surveillance over events in hopes of spotting snipers, etc to prevent another Highland event. It simply eliminates the requirement for a search warrant during a public event. Nothing more, nothing less. And nothing to supersede FAA requirements.

 

[mavic3usa]

“Non-pubic safety drone flyers”? Eek. Drones and anything pubic is a recipe for painful disaster!

I should have said "those of us you are not in the pubic safety sector."

 

[mavic3usa]

Here’s the deal:

Illinois has the “Drone Surveillance Act” which completely prevents police from using drones without a search warrant, unless looking for an endangered missing person, or AFTER a terrorist attack.

The new law you see here is a reaction to the mass shooting that occurred last 4th of July in Highland Park.

The new law allows surveillance over events in hopes of spotting snipers, etc to prevent another Highland event. It simply eliminates the requirement for a search warrant during a public event. Nothing more, nothing less. And nothing to supersede FAA requirements.

Agreed but yet another example of our rights being whittled away especially when you add to the ever growing list of reasons why a search warrant is not necessary. Why on earth the police cannot get permission in advance to fly over a known event and just need to be given a blanket exception is so they can make it a point to show up at the thousands of "events" that happen at the spur of the moment and go flying the drone and ask for forgiveness later.

 

[GFields]

But the State has to ratify and pass into Law those airspace regulations,

Not true.

Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among other things. State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace. [continue reading]

 

[BigAl07]

Ok folks... we all SHOULD know the rules here but for kicks & grins I'll make it simple:

13. Discussions about politics, weaponry and religion are not permitted in the community and will be closed or removed.

ANY more and it could be more than the "post" removed. This is not "Grey Area".

Allen

 

[BigAl07]

But the State has to ratify and pass into Law those airspace regulations, so yes, at the gritty end of the stick: government does control what happens in airspace, that is why it's defined as a "State asset".
What is becoming increasingly clear is that none of the aviation authorities either side of the Atlantic WANT recreational drone use, the only profit for them lies in the commercial licensing of sub-400' airspace. Rec UAV pilots are the same nuisance to them as the unregulated owners of private light aircraft were during the 1940's.

This is most certainly NOT the case in the USA. The FAA and ONLY the FAA (currently) have sole rights over AirSpace in the USA.

And exactly how does allowing Emergency Services (Police, SWAT, EMS etc) using UAS to cover a large event even remotely relate to PROFIT? I can tell you, with a lot of FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, that Emergency Services and UAS as NOT A PROFIT CENTER in any way. It's what I DO!!

 

[mavictk]

Yes exactly.

If the FAA doesn't step in and stop the states there will be a creeping tendency for the states to do what they want even controlling the airspace with state rules. This thread is related to state take over of the airspace: https://mavicpilots.com/threads/faa-sheds-light-on-local-drone-regulation-with-updated-fact-sheet-local-regulations.140248/

 

[mavic3usa]

If the FAA doesn't step in and stop the states there will be a creeping tendency for the states to do what they want even controlling the airspace with state rules. This thread is related to state take over of the airspace: https://mavicpilots.com/threads/faa-sheds-light-on-local-drone-regulation-with-updated-fact-sheet-local-regulations.140248/

It's already started and the FAA condones it even and will not step in. State and local officials are clever, they have come up with this thing can take-off and landing privileges which is clever....until we defeat it in court.

 

[MS Coast]

Does the FAA not kowtow to law enforcement every chance it gets? My recollection is the FAA's rationale for Remote ID broadcasting pilot location was that "law enforcement wants it that way." No reasoned analysis, just law enforcement wants it that way, so that is how it will be.

What is your source for that quotation from the FAA? Was it an FAA publication? FAA spokesperson?

What other episodes of the FAA kowtowing to law enforcement are you referencing? Just a few examples, please.