Print 51 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Apr 22 at 5:05 PM

Some civil liberties advocates feel the President shouldn't have the power to order the killings of Americans on U.S. soil.  (Source: Drone Wars UK)
The feds won't be happy about this

Not in our state.

I. Drone Controversy Heats Up

That's the message Florida legislators sent to law enforcement official both at a federal and state level, as well as defense and national intelligence agencies when it came to allegedly abusive overuse of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly dubbed drones.  The officials this week passed a law that would not altogether ban drone use in Florida, but would seriously restrict it.

As drone use has exploded overseas in conflict regions, both for surveillance and combat, the fliers have begun to creep into U.S. airspace as well.  The Obama administration recently suggested that armed drone death strikes could potentially be carried out without warrant against American citizens on U.S. soil, under certain circumstances.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have complained about the federal government's refusal to ban the use of armed drones over U.S. states.  But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been unapologetic about deploying the same kinds of drones used in Iraq -- Reaper drones and their ilk -- to patrol U.S. border states.

Some law enforcement officials argue that for small police forces, lighter drones -- which cost around $30,000 USD -- are a highly cost-effective tool for patrolling and can help catch criminals.  They say banning drones will raise costs.

II. Florida Limits the "Police State"

But those pleas fell on deaf ears as Florida legislators passed the "Freedom From Unwanted Surveillance Act" SB 92 117-0. Gov. Rick Scott (R) has already promised to sign the bill, which will make Florida only the third state to restrict drone use.  Idaho and Virginia had passed similar laws.

Under the bill drones could only be used by law enforcement in a handful of scenarios -- for example searching for a kidnapped child, managing hostage situations, searching for a dangerous fugitive, or tracking hurricanes/wildfires to prevent serious property damage.  But any use in a criminal case will now require surveillance to be ordered via a warrant -- ensuring due process.  Illegally gathered evidence, under the law, will not be admissible in court and may lead to penalties for the collecting department.

It also contains an allowance for drone use in the case of a "credible threat" of an (imminent) terrorist attack.

So far, only three law enforcement agencies are licensed to use UAVs in Florida by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and none of them have deployed fliers.

Sources: Florida State Senate, AP

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Will get bad
By BRB29 on 4/19/2013 11:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
Are you crazy?

As shown by the aggregation of imagery due to the Boston Marathon event, right now you have virtually zero privacy once you are in a "public" area. This extends into most businesses too since most businesses have surveillance cameras within their buildings (and NOT just "public" areas in those businesses).

No kidding. It's public area. You, as well as the government can take images of anything you want. The only thing you can't do is intentionally photographing minors without permission. How do you demand privacy in public? lol

Also most states have laws on the books that restrict what you can do in front of windows in your home, e.g., you can't stand nude or perform sexual acts in clear view through a window that can be seen from a public area. Therefore, to some extent actions within your home are already regulated from a surveillance standpoint

Ok that is an obvious law because there are looneys out there who did walk around naked with a wide open window. When kids walk around the street they can see it and it's disturbing. I don't want to see anyone dancing naked in their front window either. This has nothing to do with the government trying to take away your privacy. It's a law for mutual respect.

Hell, back in the 60s, in my younger and more paranoid days, with the knowledge I had what was possible in surveillance and such, I decided that I was going to build an underground house and the only thing above ground was going to be the garage. (It was not only for surveillance reasons but also for thermodynamic reasons.) Luckily I got over my paranoia and decided it was OK for me to try to live in the real world. My current house sits on a hillside with a very wide (about 150 degree) view of the valley/city below. Want to see what I'm doing? Get your binoculars and take a look. Feel free

I have nothing to say to this as you did not harm anyone or did anything to disturb others. However, that is a bit excessive.

RE: Will get bad
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 3:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
Are you crazy?
Never said I wasn't.

I used to see a therapist back in the 80s.

But, I'm MUCH better now! :-)

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

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