News Should Police Use of Drones Be Permitted?

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

But helicopters can. So if surveillance can be aerial or stealthy, why can't it be aerial and stealthy?

Because they're a tool of war.

So are guns and Humvees and two-way radios and velcro and bug spray. That is completely irrelevant to whether there is any moral/ethical issue with their use by police.

They allow law enforcement to spy on people in ways that they couldn't before.

No they don't. Drones allow police to spy on people in exactly the same way as they would with a helicopter -- they just do it better (cheaper, more stealthy, more efficient in personnel use). They are nothing more than a better way of doing the same thing.

Just because something is a superior tool doesn't mean the police should have it.

No doubt - and just because it is a superior tool doesn't mean they shouldn't. But when the superior tool breaks no new ground conceptually, there is no justification for not using it. If you disagree, be specific: what exactly is the moral/ethical line that was not crossed by a helicopter or unmarked car that is being crossed by a drone?

So far, all you are saying is that you don't want the police to be better at their jobs, which is ludicrous.

Or let's flip it over: if a cop comes up with a new or more effective way of doing something, what logical/ethical/legal test should he apply to determine whether this new device/tactic should be employed? If it makes him better at his job, he should automatically be forbidden from using 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.

Fine. Exactly how should the line be drawn? What exactly is the criteria? What exactly are the "concerns"?

 

[BobG]

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.

At some point in the future, I guess there could be stealthy drones that conceivably could be used by a police force, but that's nowhere near the case for drones that are currently available.

From the government point of view (and the reason this received publicity in the first place), drones can't weigh more than 25 pounds and can't fly higher than 400 feet. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/drones-up-to-25-pounds-allowed-for-u-s-safety-agencies.html .

This is an interim step that will serve until the FAA comes up with more comprehensive safety rules covering police departments, government agencies, and use by commercial companies. Whether privacy should or shouldn't be an issue can be debated, but the safety concerns over use of drones has been the only thing considered by government agencies so far.

Right now, any drones used by police forces will be about as stealthy as a flying lawn mower.

And even the military drones aren't exactly stealthy. Having more expensive cameras/sensors/etc, they can do the job from higher altitudes than the drones available to police, but that only helps them against low tech opponents with small arms. The real advantage of drones is that it doesn't risk a much more expensive plane or helicopter and doesn't risk any humans.

 

[CAC1001]

But helicopters can. So if surveillance can be aerial or stealthy, why can't it be aerial and stealthy?

Forgot to mention on the helicopters. Yes, helicopters can see onto your property, but you will generally be aware if there is a helicopter hovering up above your house as they are big and noisy. Law enforcement should not have the ability to watch you on your property without your knowing it when you think you are in privacy.

So are guns and Humvees and two-way radios and velcro and bug spray. That is completely irrelevant to whether there is any moral/ethical issue with their use by police.

The police don't ride around in Humvees. And yes they have guns, but the types of guns depends.

No they don't. Drones allow police to spy on people in exactly the same way as they would with a helicopter -- they just do it better (cheaper, more stealthy, more efficient in personnel use). They are nothing more than a better way of doing the same thing.

Yes, hence the "in ways they couldn't before." Police spying on someone with a helicopter is noisy. It can make the law enforcement's job more difficult, but it also prevents abuse on their part. Law enforcement officers do not always respect people's rights and freedoms. There have been problems with police lying in the courts for example. It's called Testilying. What makes you think law enforcement wouldn't eventually abuse the use of these drones?

No doubt - and just because it is a superior tool doesn't mean they shouldn't. But when the superior tool breaks no new ground conceptually, there is no justification for not using it. If you disagree, be specific: what exactly is the moral/ethical line that was not crossed by a helicopter or unmarked car that is being crossed by a drone?

A car cannot see through your homes walls or your fence. A helicopter can see over your fence, but you can hear it. A drone can watch you without your being aware of it at all.

So far, all you are saying is that you don't want the police to be better at their jobs, which is ludicrous.

Or let's flip it over: if a cop comes up with a new or more effective way of doing something, what logical/ethical/legal test should he apply to determine whether this new device/tactic should be employed? If it makes him better at his job, he should automatically be forbidden from using it? Fine. Exactly how should the line be drawn? What exactly is the criteria? What exactly are the "concerns"?

If it will give him new abilities to infringe on people's rights that he did not have before, then maybe so.

 

[CAC1001]

At some point in the future, I guess there could be stealthy drones that conceivably could be used by a police force, but that's nowhere near the case for drones that are currently available.

From the government point of view (and the reason this received publicity in the first place), drones can't weigh more than 25 pounds and can't fly higher than 400 feet. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/drones-up-to-25-pounds-allowed-for-u-s-safety-agencies.html .

This is an interim step that will serve until the FAA comes up with more comprehensive safety rules covering police departments, government agencies, and use by commercial companies. Whether privacy should or shouldn't be an issue can be debated, but the safety concerns over use of drones has been the only thing considered by government agencies so far.

That doesn't mean the government agencies are going about it in the right way.

Right now, any drones used by police forces will be about as stealthy as a flying lawn mower.

And even the military drones aren't exactly stealthy. Having more expensive cameras/sensors/etc, they can do the job from higher altitudes than the drones available to police, but that only helps them against low tech opponents with small arms. The real advantage of drones is that it doesn't risk a much more expensive plane or helicopter and doesn't risk any humans.

I am all for police being able to do things safer and more cheaply, but if it can infringe on people's rights, I think we need to go about it carefully. I do wonder what will happen if/when someone decides to shoot one of these things down if they see it hovering over their home, if they really are like the equivalent of a flying lawnmower where the person could hear it.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't see anything wrong with increasing the capability of police to monitor dangerous situations and high crime (public) areas, and visually track fugitives. There is of course the possibility that any technology might be used in ways that contradict the US Constitution. But there's no particular reason, imo, to suppose that this or any other technology will be used in that way.

 

[ThomasT]

I've lived in several densely populated urban-inner city areas, and I think that one of the main problems in those sorts of areas is gangs. I think that the implementation of the drone technology would enable the monitoring of gang activity to an extent not otherwise realizable -- and that it could lead to a decrease in gang activity.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

if the police drones had engines that were made loud on purpose, and maybe some bright blinking lights on them, would that make them acceptable?

 

[ThomasT]

if the police drones had engines that were made loud on purpose, and maybe some bright blinking lights on them, would that make them acceptable?

Even if not, I think they're acceptable. Why not? They can't see into your home. If you occasionally do some sort of questionable stuff in your back yard, then knowing that the drones might be out, you would, supposedly, curb that behavior.

Anyway, no, I don't think their presence should be made to be readily evident. The idea is to be able to get info wrt harmful elements of society. I see no reason to believe that this technology would be used against law abiding, and more or less innocent, members of society.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Even if not, I think they're acceptable. Why not? They can't see into your home. If you occasionally do some sort of questionable stuff in your back yard, then knowing that the drones might be out, you would, supposedly, curb that behavior.

Anyway, no, I don't think their presence should be made to be readily evident. The idea is to be able to get info wrt harmful elements of society. I see no reason to believe that this technology would be used against law abiding, and more or less innocent, members of society.

yes but we, presumably, live in a free society where we have principles of privacy

it's counter to the idea of "innocent before proven guilty" to have a situation such that people should be worried about being spied upon. It's intimidation, essentially. In this country, the government is not supposed to be out looking for reasons to throw people in jail.

I would also like to say that it is not really a matter of people doing things that are illegal, it is a matter of people doing things that could be questionable. The person viewing the tapes has to make a judgement call in that situation. In a situation where one is observed in supposedly private places, there would be a pressure. Not every action is black and white, especially when viewed in an odd context.

Picture this: I've got long hair, and sometimes I'm up late at night. One night, in particular, I had a strange and annoying feeling in my leg and couldn't sleep. I went out on a walk. As I was walking about campus, a police cruiser drove past. He didn't stop me, and nothing happened. But I definitely felt the "pressure".

This kind of pressure doesn't belong in a country like the USA. It's the sort of thing you'd find in an Orwellian future. The knowledge of undetectable eyes in the sky would lead to this pressure in far more cases than taking a walk at 3AM. Which is why I suggest making them very obvious. Or having very strict regulations put in place about air-space, etc. Yes, this would make it more difficult for the police to make good use of them, but hey, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[russ_watters]

Forgot to mention on the helicopters. Yes, helicopters can see onto your property, but you will generally be aware if there is a helicopter hovering up above your house as they are big and noisy. Law enforcement should not have the ability to watch you on your property without your knowing it when you think you are in privacy.

Well ignorance of the public to the law is not a good reason to forbid a police tactic: person with a fence should know they are not afforded protection from aerial surveilance.

The police don't ride around in Humvees. And yes they have guns, but the types of guns depends.

You can buy a Humvee as a civilian. My point is that your statement is devoid of meaning.

Yes, hence the "in ways they couldn't before." Police spying on someone with a helicopter is noisy. It can make the law enforcement's job more difficult, but it also prevents abuse on their part. Law enforcement officers do not always respect people's rights and freedoms.

You aren't understanding the issue. The law protects property based on the disposition of the property. Ie, put up a fence and now the police can't sit in a car and watch you. If surveillance is legal, it is typically legal to be covert. Putting up a fence does not change the legality of it being covert. "In ways they couldn't before" is improperly referenced to the covert nature: it should be referenced to the aerial nature. And obviously, the aerial nature has not changed in going from a helicopter to a drone.

Basically you are saying that if a house doesn't have a fence, covert aerial surveillance is acceptable because covert surveillance from the ground is acceptable, but if you install a fence, covert aerial surveillance is no longer acceptable. But you are missing the point of the fence: it inhibits ground surveillance, whether covert or open. In other words, the fence has nothing to do with whether surveilance can be covert, it just means it can't be from the ground.

It's called Testilying. What makes you think law enforcement wouldn't eventually abuse the use of these drones?
There have been problems with police lying in the courts for example.

No doubt pretty much every police power has been abused by a rogue police officer. That is not a legally defensible/logical reason for not having the power, it is an argument for making sure we have good cops. Similarly, we wouldn't take away a freedom/privilege for some civilians because some people abuse it. Obviously that would be unfair to the people who don't abuse it.

A car cannot see through your homes walls or your fence. A helicopter can see over your fence, but you can hear it. A drone can watch you without your being aware of it at all.

If becoming covert crosses no moral/ethical line for an unmarked car, how could it for making aerial surveillance covert? That makes no logical sense and for that reason I'm quite certain it would never fly in court.

If it will give him new abilities to infringe on people's rights that he did not have before, then maybe so.

'Some people may abuse it' is not a sound legal principle. If it were, I could just as easily use the argument to restrict most of your personal freedoms including the right to build that fence in the first place!