The Age of the Drone Police Is Here (WIRED)

[anotherlab]

I don't subscribe to the theory that having the police using drones turns that jurisdiction into a "police state". That Wired article did some decent reporting on how the city residents feel about the drones.

There is a real issue with insurance companies in CA using drones to find reasons to cancel or not renew home insurance. If someone has a permanently drained pool in their backyard, that could violate their policy. But it's a symptom of a larger problem. Insurance companies are pulling out of high-risk areas because they are losing money. They start renewing policies and use aerial footage to find ways of canceling existing policies.

 

[jaja6009]

Not yet. Eventually that is where this leads. Would you be against a state law that says police departments are prohibited from "hovering" and "spying" and any official who pilots a drone for that purpose is guilty of felony with mandatory prison time? Or will such a bill get fought and pushed down and railed against because the ultimate goal is to one day [mis]use those drones for exactly that: spying on the public, gathering and collecting information on the public, tracking the public, etc. all in the name of preventing future crimes.

New Jersey actually proposed a law stating just that. It was not passed.
I have no idea whether your proposed bill would pass or get fought because I do not have any information on the number of agencies (If any) want to conduct mass surveillance.

I can only speak for the DFR program I envision for us. The ConOps and COA will be for responding to incidents meeting certain criteria (Life Safety). The sUAS will arrive on scene (Hopefully first), provide a live stream so that resource decisions can be made. Record the incident. Make a map/model if the incident scene needs documentation.

 

[MS Coast]

I don't have anything further to discuss at this time but it's not an actual battle. Unfortunately I cannot discuss the plans to go forward, just have to wait and see I guess.

Another dose of dire drama and another secret crusade.

 

[BobaFut]

Okay, this is a goldmine of an article with incredible links. Skydio critics take note:

"The mastermind behind Chula Vista’s drone program, retired Capt. William “Fritz” Reber, is the head of public safety integration at Skydio, a drone company started by MIT grad students. Reber said he was offered a job at Skydio while continuing to help with Chula Vista’s drone program after he retired.

“They said, ‘Hey, we’re gonna sell these drones to police officers. Would you being willing to work with us as a consultant and go with our sales team so you sort of talk cop talk and speak the language and build the bridge between the consumer and the producer?’” Reber recalled.

Retiring from the police force in 2018 has not stopped Reber from using his former department as an “incubator” to expand drone programs to police departments across the country.

Emails obtained by Forbes through a Freedom of Information Act request show hundreds of exchanges between Reber and Chula Vista Police Department officials coordinating tours of the drone program and drafting federal waivers to expand drone use. A self-proclaimed “influencer in the public safety space,” Reber joined the team at Skydio a year after leaving Chula Vista. Now, Reber’s job is to sell Skydio drones to police departments around the country, and he does that in part by leveraging his ties to Chula Vista."

It was the FAA who gave Chula Vista permission to fly BVLOS. And one of those linked articles indicates it was the FAA who got Skydio's foot in the Chula Vista door.

I find Skydio's close ties to US law enforcement, effectively trying to become the "official drone of the US Surveillance State" to be more problematic than DJI's tenuous ties to the Chinese government.

 

[BobaFut]

The police disagree with you, they love the chase and will *never* allow drones to conduct a high speed chase as primary. Even when drones prove they can do so safely, won't be allowed to take over. Why do you think we still have high speed chases today after 10, 20, 50 years? No tech available, no good ideas; just waiting for drones to take over and come along and solve all our problems? Drone will be rejected just like all the other proposed tech. Look, I'd rather have them chasing and fighting bad guys but honestly, that's not the role they shine in the most.

Drones are just a cheaper way to get that sweet sweet aerial footage of the chase to pass along to the media to frame the story like an action movie.

 

[mneeze]

These police programs are referred to as DFR, (Drone as a First Responder). There are now well into the double digits of public safety organizations doing this.

In my city, we are looking at starting an entry level DFR. A well written ConOps (Concept of Operations) with a Blanket COA can allow for missions over people, cars, Tactical BVLOS and BVLOS. All of the programs that I have actually talked to a person involved do not have active surveillance in their program. The drones only respond to certain public safety incidents, it does not just hover and "spy".

For now...
And police and others in power NEVER abuse their authority and they ALWAYS abide by the very laws that they enforce...always.

Something something, bridge for sale..

 

[mneeze]

IMO, a whole bunch of teeth grinding and hand wringing over nothing. I don't break the law so I have nothing to fear. In fact, I'd much rather have police track a carjacker or criminal safely from the skies as opposed to a high speed chase in the street. Bring them on!

You don't break the law so you have nothing to fear?
Because never in history has someone been charged, ticketed, jailed etc without being unequivocally 100% guilty. And no authority, esp police, have ever made a mistake or escalated a situation based (wrongly) on their emotions. I wish i lived in your world where police/govt are perfect and they never overreach or abuse their authority. Sounds like utopia.

 

[Chip]

I find Skydio's close ties to US law enforcement, effectively trying to become the "official drone of the US Surveillance State" to be more problematic than DJI's tenuous ties to the Chinese government.

I agree. Its a startling revelation. The FAA helped put Skydio's foot in the door at Chula Vista PD and Chula Vista PD employees become Skydio employees and highly paid consultants for law enforcement agencies looking to start drone programs and procure BVLOS waivers.

 

[Chip]

"Chula Vista PD’s Drone Program Opened a Revolving Door for Officers​

A big PR push for the Chula Vista Police Department’s drone program elevated it into the role of global consultant. Members of the original team that launched the program now work for companies that help integrate drones into other cities and market their products."

Chula Vista PD’s Drone Program Opened a Revolving Door for Officers

A big PR push for the Chula Vista Police Department’s drone program elevated it into the role of global consultant. Members of the original team that launched the program now work for companies that help integrate drones into other cities and market their products.

voiceofsandiego.org

 

[Cafguy]

One big thing not discussed is the noise associated with police helicopters. This is a big deal for those of us who live in cities that have an police force with 24-7 aviation Depts. The L.A. police Dept. has been seriously looking into Drones to eventually replace its heli fleet in time. I think with the cost and the fact that drones are just less of a hassle The Drones will win out in the end.

 

[Chip]

One big thing not discussed is the noise associated with police helicopters. This is a big deal for those of us who live in cities that have an police force with 24-7 aviation Depts. The L.A. police Dept. has been seriously looking into Drones to eventually replace its heli fleet in time. I think with the cost and the fact that drones are just less of a hassle The Drones will win out in the end.

I think you are right. But I wonder whether the move to ban DJI has not been the end game for much longer than we thought. Elise Stefanik may be the visible tip of the spear but is she riding on the shoulders of hidden giants?

 

[Dasher]

Thanks for alerting us Mavic3usa,
Let me give you an experienced version of getting Police video recordings using California's Public Records Act (FOIA is for Federal agencies, Chula Vista PD is a California agency subject to CPRA.

1) In many surveys of government agencies, Police are always the worst at turning over obviously public records.

2) California's Public Records Act has an extremely helpful (and rare) provision that requires Courts to award Attorney's fees and Costs (Filing fees, copying etc.) !

This means it is not only easy to get public interest lawyers to do a CPRA lawsuit for no cost to you.
But the suits are so easy to file (essentially boilerplate forms to adjust)
and win - that freshly minted lawyers, right after passing the Bar - can start making money
due to an abundance of reluctant police agencies.

For more about CPRA visit First Amendment Coalition's website --

California Public Records Act FAQ - FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION

Read frequently asked questions about the California Public Records Act.

firstamendmentcoalition.org

They have been hiding some of their drone flights in the past and likely still doing so. Obviously they will never disclose everywhere they are flying their drone when they spy and follow the public and good luck with seeing any of the drone footage with a public records request and likely even with a court order. Beginnings of what is already a police state.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Dasher]

Not yet. Eventually that is where this leads. Would you be against a state law that says police departments are prohibited from "hovering" and "spying" and any official who pilots a drone for that purpose is guilty of felony with mandatory prison time? Or will such a bill get fought and pushed down and railed against because the ultimate goal is to one day [mis]use those drones for exactly that: spying on the public, gathering and collecting information on the public, tracking the public, etc. all in the name of preventing future crimes.

Great concept for a bill to fight spying. Thank you !

Just for reference we already pretty much have that in California,
but they sure don't teach it in law schools. Here's how --

1) Unlike our USA Federal Constitution which has essentially zero privacy protection,
California's Constitution has explicit Privacy Rights - for your protection.

(Notably, all our Federal Rights are "duck taped on" as an after thought (what are they called?) - Amendments.
Conversely, California's Privacy Right is in Section1, Article 1 - at the very front of our state constitution)

California Constitution :: Article I - Declaration of Rights :: Section 1.

California Constitution

law.justia.com

2) Our USA Federal Rights can only be used as defense (such as for a criminal process)
But California's Rights can be used as defense AND Offense.
This means you can successfully sue someone, or some entity (like a PD or insurance company)
who violates your rights.
Not kidding.

So - any California police dept that spies on you (drone or otherwise) is risking big bucks that --
1) You will do a public records request and Courts will force them to turn over the video and photographs they took, and
2) Sue the PD (and possibly the employees) who made the video.

Thus endeth today's lesson

 

[anotherlab]

Great concept for a bill to fight spying. Thank you !

Just for reference we already pretty much have that in California,
but they sure don't teach it in law schools. Here's how --

1) Unlike our USA Federal Constitution which has essentially zero privacy protection,
California's Constitution has explicit Privacy Rights - for your protection.

(Notably, all our Federal Rights are "duck taped on" as an after thought (what are they called?) - Amendments.
Conversely, California's Privacy Right is in Section1, Article 1 - at the very front of our state constitution)

California Constitution :: Article I - Declaration of Rights :: Section 1.

California Constitution

law.justia.com

In California, people are allowed to take photos or video of you in public. Where you don’t have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” including most public places, pretty much anything you do can be photographed or recorded. That would include law enforcement.

So - any California police dept that spies on you (drone or otherwise) is risking big bucks that --
1) You will do a public records request and Courts will force them to turn over the video and photographs they took, and
2) Sue the PD (and possibly the employees) who made the video.

You can file a FOIL request for #1. You may not get it, but you can FOIL it.
For #2, I don't think there would be any legal grounds to sue over video that was recorded in a public area.

 

[mavic3usa]

For #2, I don't think there would be any legal grounds to sue over video that was recorded in a public area.

It's possible a lawsuit may be what we need to establish the boundaries if we don't find a way to work this out. This is a work in progress and we need to keep it current and relevant especially when it comes to drones and other tech such as facial recognition. It's not enough to say "if you show your face in public, the police can scan you face, log your whereabouts, and collect and keep that data forever because when you cannot demand any privacy from your government when you go out into the public." For sure when it comes to the citizens, there is no 4th amendment violation when it comes to a public place and the reasonable expectation of privacy generally. However, the state and the people can and should create laws and [department] policy so we can make sure our police department respect the 4th amendment and maybe even a stricter standard and here are some examples, we need to work on this:

Police Body Camera Policies: Privacy and First Amendment Protections

Some departments have special circumstances when officers are not supposed to record. This chart pulls out policies for witnesses & victims, areas with heightened expectation of privacy, First Amendment activity, and use of facial recognition technology.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[tstr14]

This is George Orwell saying "I tried to warn you!".

 

[anotherlab]

It's possible a lawsuit may be what we need to establish the boundaries if we don't find a way to work this out. This is a work in progress and we need to keep it current and relevant especially when it comes to drones and other tech such as facial recognition. It's not enough to say "if you show your face in public, the police can scan you face, log your whereabouts, and collect and keep that data forever because when you cannot demand any privacy from your government when you go out into the public."

If you want to change a law and provide additional protection over what is defined in the Constitution, then you should petition lawmakers to change the law. Filing a lawsuit against the police for doing something legal is just a waste of time and resources.

Facial recognition is a separate issue from what started this thread.

When you go out in public, you have a diminished expectation of privacy. If you don't want anyone to track you, then don't carry a cell phone, don't use a credit card, don't drive a car, and don't use a search engine.

However, the state and the people can and should create laws and [department] policy so we can make sure our police department respect the 4th amendment and maybe even a stricter standard and here are some examples, we need to work on this:

Police Body Camera Policies: Privacy and First Amendment Protections

Some departments have special circumstances when officers are not supposed to record. This chart pulls out policies for witnesses & victims, areas with heightened expectation of privacy, First Amendment activity, and use of facial recognition technology.

www.brennancenter.org

None of the police departments in the link that you provided have any rules to ban recordings outside and in a public place.

 

[mavic3usa]

If you want to change a law and provide additional protection over what is defined in the Constitution, then you should petition lawmakers to change the law. Filing a lawsuit against the police for doing something legal is just a waste of time and resources.

Facial recognition is a separate issue from what started this thread.

When you go out in public, you have a diminished expectation of privacy. If you don't want anyone to track you, then don't carry a cell phone, don't use a credit card, don't drive a car, and don't use a search engine.


None of the police departments in the link that you provided have any rules to ban recordings outside and in a public place.

I'll check back with you when we get it done. You just standby and do nothing, we'll figure it out for you.

 

[mavic3usa]

Here they come. Push out DJI and then take over.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MS Coast]

Here they come. Push out DJI and then take over.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What's the threat du jour? Are you suggesting the Skydio has engineered the measures being considered by the US Congress to restrict DJI? Or are you suggesting an alliance between Skydio and the agencies who are using their drones? Or just the government agencies doing the ;ushing?