Print 62 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Jun 21 at 3:03 PM

  (Source: Curbed)
The EFF wants citizens to force local police departments to be transparent about potentially frightening fliers

The U.S. is no warzone, but in what some would call another sign of the rising U.S. "police state", some local police departments are looking to deploy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).  These drones are startlingly similar to the kind of fliers used by the U.S. armed forces to perform attacks and surveillance within war-torn Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- in fact sometimes they're the same models.

Last month, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) begrudgingly complied with a Freedom of Information Act request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to list the parties that had been authorized to use unmanned drones to patrol over U.S. Among those listed among the 60+ accepted applicants were "about two dozen" police agencies.

The EFF is quite concerned about this development, particularly given that buried within the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act", a funding bill for the FAA, was a provision that mandated that the FAA automatically accepted requests by police agencies looking to deploy drones (assuming they provide sufficient paperwork showing they know how to fly them safely).

For Americans, police are essential public servants and key defenders of communities.  But there have also been issues in many regions of police abuses.

Now with the police preparing to gain access to a powerful -- and potentially easy to abuse -- new high tech tool, the EFF is stepping up its efforts to try to involve citizens to force police departments who use drones to offer details and transparency about their program.

Police attacking
The EFF warns that police may soon have the ability to literally peer in your bedroom window.
[Image Source: Occupy News Network]

Specifically, the EFF wants citizens to ask what kind of data is being collected, how many drones are being flown, and what models of drones are being operated.  The EFF is particularly concerned about armed models, which it believes are being put into use.  It writes:

Drones are capable of highly advanced and almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. They carry various types of equipment includinglive-feed video cameras, infrared cameras, heat sensors, and radar. Some newer drones carry super high resolution “gigapixel” cameras that can “track people and vehicles from altitudes above 20,000 feet[,] . . . [can] monitor up to 65 enemies of the State simultaneously[, and] . . . can see targets from almost 25 miles down range.” Predator drones can eavesdrop on electronic transmissions, and one drone unveiled at DEFCON last year can crack Wi-Fi networks and intercept text messages and cell phone conversations—without the knowledge or help of either the communications provider or the customer. Drones are also designed to carry weapons, and some have suggested that drones carrying weapons such as tasers and bean bag guns could be used domestically.
The EFF adds:

This is just the first step. Once we've collected the data, we will release it and tell you how you can contact your local municipal government to demand that they ban law enforcement drones or install robust privacy safeguards that will protect citizens from unwanted—and unconstitutional—surveillance.

Those interesting in helping can visit the project page here.

UAV police
The EFF is concerned about police departments deploying armed UAVs, which raise the potential for serious abuses. [Image Source: AP]

Source: EFF

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Wow...
By tayb on 6/12/2012 4:21:46 PM , Rating: -1
You grossly misunderstand what these drones are used for. The EFF theorized that it may be possible for police departments to fly armed drones but it has no evidence that any PD is actively doing so. They merely cite a lack of supporting information dictating that they can't. You also overestimate the spying potential for these things. At the altitudes they fly they would be lucky to determine your gender.

Are you also up in arms about police departments owning helicopters? The most likely use for these drones is traffic monitoring and basic reconnaissance. I see helicopters tracking incidents all the time, seems to me that a drone is cheaper, more effective, and has a wider set of uses than a helicopter.

You guys watch too much Fox News.

RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 4:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
What does Fox News have to do with this? Have they even RAN this story? Stop being a troll. Being concerned about our rights and privacy have NOTHING to do with "Fox News".

RE: Wow...
By tayb on 6/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 4:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Way to purposefully remove my smiley face that indicated I was joking. Yeah, not trolling at all there Tayb. Clearly I was being serious.

RE: Wow...
By Decom on 6/12/2012 5:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Fox news have already ran similar news stories on Unmanned Drones being used over civilian areas of the US, and just as usual some of their reports were talking like they were already armed with HellFire Missiles etc. and on the hunt for targets.

I do think however, this is another intrusion of our private lives, just one more push from the Nanny State.

Just on the link above, Go Judge Napolitano !

RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 5:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
and just as usual some of their reports were talking like they were already armed with HellFire Missiles etc. and on the hunt for targets.

Right they should just wait for it to actually happen before they report on the possibility. Because that's being a good journalist and Government watchdog?

You know what's funny? When Bush was in office the Leftist media was all up in arms about the use of these drones on actual battlefields thousands of miles away. But drones being used in the actual country flying over citizens heads? Nope, nothing to see here. Just some "Fox News" wackos have problems with drones...

RE: Wow...
By tayb on 6/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 4:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
You can't ride a drone. You can't land a drone and have an officer render assistance from it. Comparing drones to choppers is idiotic.

I think people have this idea of drones patrolling the skies watching cataloging your every move and sending your coordinates back to a centralized server to make sure you aren't doing anything wrong. Impossible, the US is far too large.

Oh don't worry, given enough time and money, they'll figure it out.

RE: Wow...
By tayb on 6/12/2012 4:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
You can't ride a drone. You can't land a drone and have an officer render assistance from it. Comparing drones to choppers is idiotic.

How often do choppers actually land and render assistance...? This isn't SWAT, these are city PDs and I've never once seen a police chopper land. Choppers are routinely used to monitor traffic, assist in police chases, assist in man hunts, etc. Most of the functions of a police chopper can be accomplished with a drone. But oh noes!!!! Teh privacy concerns!!!!

RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 4:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
So you have no concerns at all about civilian police flying military-grade multi-million dollar hardware around? Anyone who questions this must be a "Fox News" tin foil hat crazy.

Okay then argument over I guess. You clearly win.

So much for these just being used for traffic monitoring, by the way. Now before you troll on, I have no problem with him being arrested. He obviously broke laws and acted stupidly. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned at ALL about the methods used by the police? Shouldn't the question of drone-use legality been settled BEFORE they were used on a US citizen?

Do you even ask these questions before blindly accepting the premise of everything presented to you? Or is it some unshakable loyalty to authority?

RE: Wow...
By Jeffk464 on 6/13/2012 9:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of multimillion dollar I think we should be more concerned with budgets. I know in CA the gov keeps trying to jack up fees and taxes to cover the public safety union workers pay, benefits, and huge retirement systems. The fact that these union begotten budgets are going to bankrupt us all should probably be our main concern. Giving them more expensive toys is only going to put us down the rat hole quicker.

RE: Wow...
By Jeffk464 on 6/13/2012 9:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
HOw much money have you lost to crime? How much money have you lost to property tax, sales tax, etc?

RE: Wow...
By twhittet on 6/13/2012 11:02:37 PM , Rating: 2 you even know this case at all? Civilian police didn't "fly" a military drone. The border patrol did a fly-over as a courtesy - after hearing about the standoff from all the radio traffic. Border patrol - already patrolling.

Obviously this is an issue we will have to face, but as usual your ranting and raving with incorrect facts and exaggerations is....well, typical. I expect no less. Way to be - you.

RE: Wow...
By artemicion on 6/12/2012 4:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Playing devil's advocate here, but those two distinctions seem rather immaterial. Does it really make it more OK if the drone were designed to be capable of carrying a rider? Is it less OK if the police use a helicopter purely for surveillance purposes and with no intention of landing it to render assistance? I don't really care one way or another, but honestly, my first reaction to all this outrage over drones was, why be offended by the use of drones unless you're also offended by the use of helicopters? Because it's easier to use a drone?

RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 5:05:37 PM , Rating: 3
Those are really good questions.

First of all I don't know where people live where Police employ fleets of helicopter surveillance units 24/7. But I've certainly never seen this anyplace I've lived.

We must ALWAYS question an increase in the powers and monitoring ability of the police. This doesn't mean we're "against" it, or "outraged". It's our duty as citizens to question our Government and make sure due process is being followed and our rights are being taken into account.

What I see here are a bunch of too-trusting apologists waving a hand saying "it's fine guys". You know who does that? A bad citizen, an apathetic slob, that's who.

RE: Wow...
By artemicion on 6/12/2012 5:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't heard of any city employing drone surveillance units 24/7 either, so, again, I fail to see the distinction.

I think what you're trying to get at is that a drone collects much far more information than a manned helicopter. To that, I would pose two questions:

1) do you think the police should be required to employ the less convenient/more difficult method of surveillance because it's less intrusive?
2) don't you think there's *less* opportunity for abuse by an unmanned drone? A guy sitting in a helicopter can lie and say he saw things when he really didn't just to effectuate an arrest. Videotape from a drone is harder to abuse since it's a more objective record.

Regardless of whether the drone is manned or not, the warrant requirement would still exist, imposing a limitation on the opportunity for abuse. If the police improperly violate a person's privacy by deploying a drone to collect evidence without a warrant, that evidence will likely be found to be inadmissible. Given that protection, should we, as a society, demand that the police employ less convenient methods simply to provide further protection against abuse?

RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 5:39:56 PM , Rating: 1
Given that protection, should we, as a society, demand that the police employ less convenient methods simply to provide further protection against abuse?

Between that and a looming police state? Yes, I should say so.

There's another word for "surveillance". Spying. You can cook up all the scenarios you want to trap me into a hypothetical straw man, but when it comes down to it we're arguing about degrees of spying on citizens. NOT just criminals, but common citizens.

RE: Wow...
By croc on 6/13/2012 1:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
"There's another word for "surveillance". Spying. You can cook up all the scenarios you want to trap me into a hypothetical straw man, but when it comes down to it we're arguing about degrees of spying on citizens. NOT just criminals, but common citizens."

There's no 'degree of spying' anymore than there is 'a little bit pregnant' Some things are truly black and white. The US is a police state. Get over it. Or do something about it, your call.

RE: Wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 5:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'll add that it's probably not the best way to spend money but those helicopters can cost several million each and they are much more expensive to fly, insure, and maintain.

Good! That means they can't use too many of them. We're talking about the police here, aren't we? Not the freaking 101st Airborne!

Also I think you're way overestimating the cost of those choppers. Police copters start at $500,000 and can go up to $3million. STILL less than these drones.

But trying to make a budgetary argument in favor of these drones is asinine. You and I both know this will only increase police costs. There isn't going to be any savings with this.

RE: Wow...
By EyesWideOpen on 6/12/2012 5:31:51 PM , Rating: 3
The problem isn’t with the possible uses today, it is unforeseen future uses. Word games are a politician’s tool, they make you believe one thing; but leave the door open to future options of their own choosing. Some politicians were against the patriot act; until they were in power now they use it like they were never against it. By allowing a military weapon system such as the drones without stated limits with penalties for crossing them, somebody will push the envelope just because they can.

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

Those who press forward without regard for the consequences of actions sometimes create self-fulfilling prophecies, which defeat the reason for doing it in the first place. I am all for security; but now that the police are more closely aligned with politicians, and the politicians know and have them covered. This is just another step the path to the loss of individual freedoms (e.g. Get caught recording the police doing something wrong and go to jail.).

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki