News Should Police Use of Drones Be Permitted?

[CAC1001]

So police departments nationwide are seeking to acquire drones as they are cheaper and so effective. I was just watching Special Report, and Charles Krauthammer said they should be banned outright, which I found interesting, as usually neoconservatives (like him) are the ones who differ from the more libertarian conservatives and libertarians, and the left, when it comes to increasing police power and government powers to catch terrorists and criminals and so forth. For example, how the left and the libertarians all disdain the Patriot Act but the neoconservatives are generally okay with it. Or attitudes toward a strong standing military, where the libertarians are only for a very small military capable of defense, while neoconservatives reason that in the modern world, we have to have a big strong powerful standing military.

Krauthammer said that police having drones goes too far however, that drones are an instrument of war, and should not be flying over America as a method of law enforcement. He said even if they do not intend to abuse them, their use will end up being abused.

Was wondering people's opinions on this as I really didn't have an opinion on this. Normally, if it was just the Ron Paul types and maybe the ACLU railing over it, I'd reason that they were probably blowing something not so serious way out of proportion (for example Ron Paul is against the border fence on the idea that it could be used to keep Americans in), but now I am not so sure. They said this could allow a real-life version of "black helicopters" if you will. I also understand that in this modern era, police forces do have to be more "militarized" if you will, especially in the big cities where they sometimes are counter-terrorism capable and often more like a paramilitary force in certain ways, but there is a limit.

 

[DaveC426913]

Technology will tend to get pushed into service where it is useful. With time and exposure, what was once scary becomes commonplace.

Once there was a time when we thought public security cameras were an invasion of our privacy.

 

[CAC1001]

Technology will tend to get pushed into service where it is useful. With time and exposure, what was once scary becomes commonplace.

Once there was a time when we thought public security cameras were an invasion of our privacy.

We still do I think. America doesn't have the kind of surveillance cameras set up like they have in Britain for example and other nations.

 

[DaveC426913]

We still do I think. America doesn't have the kind of surveillance cameras set up like they have in Britain for example and other nations.

With time and exposure...

10 chars

 

[CAC1001]

Just because time and exposure can lower sensitivity to something does not make it right though.

 

[russ_watters]

Police definitely should be using drones, more security cameras and microphones to triangulate shootings.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just because time and exposure can lower sensitivity to something does not make it right though.

True. What makes it right is if it helps stem the tide of growing crime and violence. And that people vote for it.

 

[dlgoff]

How does one know if they are flying over now or not; Can't see them, can't hear them? So does it matter what the public thinks?

 

[CAC1001]

True. What makes it right is if it helps stem the tide of growing crime and violence. And that people vote for it.

Just because something helps stem crime doesn't make it right. There are a lot of checks on police power that exist that, if removed, could help the police "stem the tide of growing crime and violence." But that doesn't mean they should be removed. That people may vote for something doesn't make it right, or Constitutional, either.

For example, you have a right to remain silent when dealing with law enforcement. Most people don't know that, but you have no legal requirement to talk to any law enforcement, local, state, or federal. The most you might have to do, depending on the state, is to show them your ID. You also have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. A lot of police consider these things pains that hamstring them from doing their job, but they exist for a reason.

 

[CAC1001]

Police definitely should be using drones, more security cameras and microphones to triangulate shootings.

How does one balance this against privacy concerns though? I understand it can be taken too far in the other direction, hamstringing the police too much, but it can also be overdone in favor of the police too.

 

[Jasongreat]

Why stop there, let's let them make door to door searches, heck let's just let one policeman stay for free in every household in the us, that would really put a damper on crime.

To cac, you need to look around a little more, there are cameras all over in the us.

To the op, no they should not have drones, they should not have roadside stops without probable cause, they should not have the right to force you to testify against yourself, they should not have the right to tell you what you can eat, etc;, but that hasn't stopped them yet, so I predict drones soon coming to a neighborhood near you! They say the constitution is a living document, judging by how they act, it is a dead document.

 

[CAC1001]

How does one know if they are flying over now or not; Can't see them, can't hear them? So does it matter what the public thinks?

If you're the military hunting for terrorists in the Middle East or whatnot, no, but in a liberal democracy where we protect rights, yes.

 

[CAC1001]

Why stop there, let's let them make door to door searches, heck let's just let one policeman stay for free in every household in the us, that would really put a damper on crime.

To cac, you need to look around a little more, there are cameras all over in the us.

To the op, no they should not have drones, they should not have roadside stops without probable cause, they should not have the right to force you to testify against yourself, they should not have the right to tell you what you can eat, etc;, but that hasn't stopped them yet, so I predict drones soon coming to a neighborhood near you! They say the constitution is a living document, judging by how they act, it is a dead document.

CAC and the OP are the same person

I know we have cameras, but I don't know if they are as extensive as in certain other countries. Technically everyone carries a tracking device on them now anyhow in the form of cellphones.

 

[russ_watters]

How does one balance this against privacy concerns though? I understand it can be taken too far in the other direction, hamstringing the police too much, but it can also be overdone in favor of the police too.

Unless they fly the drone through an open window, I don't see the concern. Could you explain it to me?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I generally don't think surveillance tools that just monitor public space is a big deal, and haven't heard anything about drones that would make them an exception

 

[phinds]

I generally don't think surveillance tools that just monitor public space is a big deal ...

One of the issues is that the military drones can take videos of what you do in your back yard and if the military doesn't like what it sees (you have too many bags of fertilizer so might be a bomb-maker) they can act on it. I do NOT think of my back yard as a public space.

The caveat, for now at least, is that they are only allowed to collect such videos "inadvertently" while on some other mission. I don't find that comforting.

 

[CAC1001]

Unless they fly the drone through an open window, I don't see the concern. Could you explain it to me?

phinds provided one example, but it's also just a way for the government to directly watch people without their knowing about it. One cannot see or hear drones when they are high up, that is why they are so good at catching terrorists.

 

[russ_watters]

Unmarked cars are covert and police helicopters can see into your backyard from the air. Do you have similar concerns about these tools?

 

[DaveC426913]

One of the issues is that the military drones can take videos of what you do in your back yard and if the military doesn't like what it sees (you have too many bags of fertilizer so might be a bomb-maker) they can act on it. I do NOT think of my back yard as a public space.

But they do not need drones to obtain this kind of intel, so how are drones exceptional?

 

[ThomasT]

So police departments nationwide are seeking to acquire drones as they are cheaper and so effective. I was just watching Special Report, and Charles Krauthammer said they should be banned outright, which I found interesting, as usually neoconservatives (like him) are the ones who differ from the more libertarian conservatives and libertarians, and the left, when it comes to increasing police power and government powers to catch terrorists and criminals and so forth. For example, how the left and the libertarians all disdain the Patriot Act but the neoconservatives are generally okay with it. Or attitudes toward a strong standing military, where the libertarians are only for a very small military capable of defense, while neoconservatives reason that in the modern world, we have to have a big strong powerful standing military.

Krauthammer said that police having drones goes too far however, that drones are an instrument of war, and should not be flying over America as a method of law enforcement. He said even if they do not intend to abuse them, their use will end up being abused.

Was wondering people's opinions on this as I really didn't have an opinion on this. Normally, if it was just the Ron Paul types and maybe the ACLU railing over it, I'd reason that they were probably blowing something not so serious way out of proportion (for example Ron Paul is against the border fence on the idea that it could be used to keep Americans in), but now I am not so sure. They said this could allow a real-life version of "black helicopters" if you will. I also understand that in this modern era, police forces do have to be more "militarized" if you will, especially in the big cities where they sometimes are counter-terrorism capable and often more like a paramilitary force in certain ways, but there is a limit.

I think that drones are ok. Unlike many police officers I know, drones aren't emotionally or intellectually challenged. I welcome increased surveillance, to a point, because I don't intend to commit any crimes, and I think it increases police ability to protect the law abiding public. When I go out in public, I'm not exercising my right to privacy any more. So, surveil me in public all you want. No problem. But, break into my house and you just might receive a load of buckshot.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Unlike many police officers I know, drones aren't emotionally or intellectually challenged.

This is just about the worst logic I have heard in a while. Do you realize that there are people flying these machines?

 

[ThomasT]

This is just about the worst logic I have heard in a while. Do you realize that there are people flying these machines?

Yes, and the operators are removed from immediated danger. So, I suppose, less susceptible to panic, emotional distress, intellectual meltdown, etc.

When I say emotionally and intellectually challenged, it's wrt the potential emotional and intellectual demands of the job. My guess is that they're essentially well-meaning people -- but some people who are cops probably shouldn't be. Just my opinion. But put that same person who's ill-equipped to handle a situation in person behind the controls of a surveillance drone ... no problem. Just my current opinion.

 

[phinds]

But they do not need drones to obtain this kind of intel, so how are drones exceptional?

Good point, and I don't know that they are (although come to think of it, I'm sure drones can get better resolution to ground level than satellites) , I just object to the fact that, according to what I read/saw, the military has absolutely no civilian oversight in this regard.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you are getting mixed up here. This is not about the military spying on civilian (that's illegal), it is about the police using military derived/related technology.

 

[phinds]

I think you are getting mixed up here. This is not about the military spying on civilian (that's illegal), it is about the police using military derived/related technology.

I agree that I took that thread on a side-trip. That was because of a news article I saw yesterday. The military DOES spy on civilians and as long as they do it "inadvertently" it not only is legal, it is not subject to civilian oversight, according to this article.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I agree that I took that thread on a side-trip. That was because of a news article I saw yesterday. The military DOES spy on civilians and as long as they do it "inadvertently" it not only is legal, it is not subject to civilian oversight, according to this article

Can you source this?

 

[Alfi]

I think you are getting mixed up here. This is not about the military spying on civilian (that's illegal), it is about the police using military derived/related technology.

Is it? ( the bolded part) ?

 

[phinds]

Can you source this?

I'll poke around and see what I can find. I'm very clear on what was said but I don't remember whether it was a CNN news show or a BBC on-line article, or what.

EDIT: OK, a quick search turned this up. This is a blog on CNN, and it contains that same statement that I recall.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/should-drones-be-used-to-spy-on-americans/?hpt=hp_t2

There is an Air Force document that says if unmanned drones accidentally capture surveillance footage of Americans, they can keep the information for up to 90 days and analyze it. Where is that in the Constitution?

The program that I watched added the fact that there is no civilian oversight of this process.

 

[lisab]

I'll poke around and see what I can find. I'm very clear on what was said but I don't remember whether it was a CNN news show or a BBC on-line article, or what.

Yes, I saw it too -

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/air-force-drones-domestic-spy/

 

[phinds]

Yes, I saw it too -

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/air-force-drones-domestic-spy/

Thanks. That's actually a different one than what I saw, but it says the same things.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it? ( the bolded part) ?

It isn't black and white, but essentially the US military cannot be employed domestically except in case of armed insurrection or natural disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

According to the wiki, the insurrection act was invoked to put down the LA riots, though no actual military engagement happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_Riots

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that I took that thread on a side-trip. That was because of a news article I saw yesterday. The military DOES spy on civilians and as long as they do it "inadvertently" it not only is legal, it is not subject to civilian oversight, according to this article.

I vehemently object to your characterization. If a member of the military witnesses a civilian crime while on duty and reports it, that is most certainly not spying. That's being an upstanding, responsible member of society. What this directive does is extend/clarify that concept when applied to video captured during training.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, back to the point of the thread:

Unmarked cars are covert and police helicopters can see into your backyard from the air. Do you have similar concerns about these tools?

 

[CAC1001]

Unmarked cars are covert and police helicopters can see into your backyard from the air. Do you have similar concerns about these tools?

Unmarked cars aren't flying overhead and able to see you in the way drones are able to. And helicopters you can generally hear and even see. Drones are silent and invisible to the naked eye.

 

[AlephZero]

Maybe the US police forces are better at playing with high tech toys than the UK, but one UK police force has apparently given up on them.

He added: "Initially the force identified the potential benefits of a UAV within operational policing. However, during its use officers recognised certain technical and operational issues including staff training costs and the inability to use the UAV in all weather conditions."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-15520279

 

[DaveC426913]

Unmarked cars aren't flying overhead and able to see you in the way drones are able to. And helicopters you can generally hear and even see. Drones are silent and invisible to the naked eye.

This is an incremental difference - quantitative only, not qualitative.

Do you object to unmarked cars and helicopters? If not, where do you draw the line?

 

[BobG]

I don't see how surveillance of public spaces is an invasion of personal privacy, seeing as how the person is out in public. Nor do I see the use of backscatter imagers at airports as an invasion of personal privacy.

Invasion of a person's private conversations, whether via telephone, letter, or e-mail, is an invasion of privacy, as is monitoring the books a person checks out of the library or their purchases, etc.

It amazes me how quickly people give up personal private information that actually means something just because it makes life more convenient, but get upset over the trivial issue of being seen when they're in public.

And, by the way, where in the world are these invisible and silent drones coming from. They're not silent, they have a motor, but, granted, a drone could be flying so high that you wouldn't notice the sound when you're in the city, and they're certainly not invisible. I admit they'd be less likely to attract attention than a helicopter, but I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

 

[lisab]

I don't see how surveillance of public spaces is an invasion of personal privacy, seeing as how the person is out in public. Nor do I see the use of backscatter imagers at airports as an invasion of personal privacy.

Invasion of a person's private conversations, whether via telephone, letter, or e-mail, is an invasion of privacy, as is monitoring the books a person checks out of the library or their purchases, etc.

It amazes me how quickly people give up personal private information that actually means something just because it makes life more convenient, but get upset over the trivial issue of being seen when they're in public.

And, by the way, where in the world are these invisible and silent drones coming from. They're not silent, they have a motor, but, granted, a drone could be flying so high that you wouldn't notice the sound when you're in the city, and they're certainly not invisible. I admit they'd be less likely to attract attention than a helicopter, but I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

True, in public places there are cameras, regular and plain clothes police, and other people around. We know we are being observed.

What I don't like about this: the drones observe people in areas where they have an expectation of privacy.

The excuse some people use, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you have a problem with being observed?", just nauseates me.

 

[russ_watters]

Unmarked cars aren't flying overhead and able to see you in the way drones are able to. And helicopters you can generally hear and even see. Drones are silent and invisible to the naked eye.

So the basic quibble against drones is that they are superior tools to what police currently use? How is that a morality/ethics based concern?

 

[russ_watters]

It amazes me how quickly people give up personal private information that actually means something just because it makes life more convenient, but get upset over the trivial issue of being seen when they're in public.

Wholeheartedly agree. Another example is the heated debate over requiring a photo ID for voting. Yet people don't give it a second thought when buying alcohol or cigarettes (or cough syrup!) and will gleefully provide Walt Disney a fingerprint (!) when entering one of his parks. The inconsistencies in privacy concerns are glaring to me.

 

[Office_Shredder]

russ, the photo id for voting debate is not over privacy concerns, it's about voter disenfranchisement

 

[meldraft]

As with all tools, it depends on how you use it. If the democratic institutions are functioning properly, it can be a great asset towards crime-solving. If they are not (which is true in many western societies) they can be used by the government to control the public and make political prosecutions. I have seen examples of this in my country, where the cameras (even where they do exist) are never used to solve crimes. They are mostly used for crowd control in demonstrations, where they find they weak spots (children and elderly) to throw tear gas. I dare not imagine what they could do with drones (maybe throw tear bombs?!).

 

[russ_watters]

What I don't like about this: the drones observe people in areas where they have an expectation of privacy.

What areas are you referring to? Your backyard certainly does not qualify.

The excuse some people use, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you have a problem with being observed?", just nauseates me.

As far as I can tell, no one has said that.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, the photo id for voting debate is not over privacy concerns, it's about voter disenfranchisement

Opponents try to frame it that way, but there are relatively easy ways around it that avoid the issue, but are still not supported: such as a mandatory national ID. The ACLU itself is a big offender:
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/5-problems-national-id-cards

#2: IDs are bad because they assist in invasion of privacy.

 

[meldraft]

A small off-topic statement: if governments made a little effort to make people happier, they wouldn't need police drones. I am now living abroad, and the city I'm in has a 0% crime rate

 

[Office_Shredder]

If the city you live in has literally zero crime it's not being reported and/or the propaganda is a lie

 

[meldraft]

If the city you live in has literally zero crime it's not being reported and/or the propaganda is a lie

well ok, it's 0.3% You can always get your bicycle stolen or something, but there are really no violent crimes.

 

[lisab]

What areas are you referring to? Your backyard certainly does not qualify. As far as I can tell, no one has said that.

Are you saying a person has no expectation of privacy in your backyard? If so, I think you're wrong.

I don't know much about law, but the legal term for the backyard is "curtilage".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage

The curtilage is an important legal term to define the land immediately surrounding a house or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated 'open fields beyond'. It defines the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where 'intimate home activities' take place. It is an important legal concept in some jurisdictions for the understanding of burglary, trespass, and in relation to planning controls.

Bolding mine.

There have been several cases challenging what defines "curtilage" in specific instances, but how can one argue a person has no expectation of privacy in, say, a *fenced* yard on his own property?

 

[russ_watters]

A fence certainly changes things for observation from the ground, but it doesn't protect against activities done in plain view of an aircraft. http://www.caselaw4cops.net/searchandseizure/curtilage.htm

 

[CAC1001]

This is an incremental difference - quantitative only, not qualitative.

Do you object to unmarked cars and helicopters? If not, where do you draw the line?

Unmarked cars can't see through the walls of your house or into your backyard if you have a fence. You have an element of privacy.

I don't see how surveillance of public spaces is an invasion of personal privacy, seeing as how the person is out in public. Nor do I see the use of backscatter imagers at airports as an invasion of personal privacy.

Invasion of a person's private conversations, whether via telephone, letter, or e-mail, is an invasion of privacy, as is monitoring the books a person checks out of the library or their purchases, etc.

It amazes me how quickly people give up personal private information that actually means something just because it makes life more convenient, but get upset over the trivial issue of being seen when they're in public.

The issue isn't so much being seen when in public, but being watched when you are supposed to be on the privacy of your property.

And, by the way, where in the world are these invisible and silent drones coming from. They're not silent, they have a motor, but, granted, a drone could be flying so high that you wouldn't notice the sound when you're in the city, and they're certainly not invisible. I admit they'd be less likely to attract attention than a helicopter, but I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

Drones are silent and invisible as far as aircraft go when they're flying up high. That is why they are so effective against terrorists. You can't hear or see a drone when it's flying above and watching you. Helicopters on the other hand, are a lot bigger and noisier. If the FBI or police or whatnot have a helicopter hovering over your house watching you, and following you around when you drive, youwill probably notice it. There are maybe some exceptions with helicopters, such as the Apache attack helicopters can be pretty silent to someone on the ground when they are up high enough and at a distance, and say hiding behind trees with the pilots watching via the big camera/radar thing above the rotor that the Longbow Apaches have. But I mean that's a military attack helicopter. Law enforcement doesn't use those.

So the basic quibble against drones is that they are superior tools to what police currently use? How is that a morality/ethics based concern?

Because they're a tool of war. They allow law enforcement to spy on people in ways that they couldn't before. Just because something is a superior tool doesn't mean the police should have it. There are lots of high-powered weapons and armored vehicles police forces can use (and some do) that are big improvements over their standard equipment and vehicles, but that causes concerns about the militarization of the police forces. The only police forces that should have such things are those that absolutely need it.