Civil Liberties On US Soil: Police Drones Aren't Just Small Helicopters
Simon McCormack writes at the HuffPo that proponents of the use of police drones in the US claim that they're a lot like police helicopters, which have been in use for decades:
In a blogpost, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that there are important distinctions between the two types of surveillance tools.For one thing, helicopters are far more expensive than drones. "Manned helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are expensive to acquire, staff, and maintain. A police helicopter costs from $500,000 to $3 million to acquire, and $200-$400 an hour to fly," according to the ACLU.
That means mass use of helicopters by police departments is prohibitively pricey.
By comparison, the ACLU argues, "it's easy to foresee a day when even a professional police drone could be acquired for less than a hundred dollars, including maintenance costs."
Drones can also get places that helicopters can't, meaning they run the risk of becoming more invasive, producing greater privacy concerns, the group said.
"Even the smallest manned helicopter can't fly into a garage or hover unseen outside a third-story bedroom window," the post said.
Drones can also hover silently for days, unlike noisy helicopters that can't stay in the air for nearly as long.
As it is, I'm opposed to the overuse of LAPD helicopters, which costs a bundle. I follow a cop-watcher on Twitter, and several times daily, I'll see even minor crimes being reported being met with "airship on its way."
We shouldn't let the existence of technology drive the erosion of our civil liberties. Because technology exists doesn't mean it's right to use.
Last month when the former LAPD cop went postal I looked it up, found the LAPD has a helicopter fleet larger than that of some nations, 19 choppers and one King Air, all ready to go Blue Thunder on your ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPD_Air_Support_Division
Anyway, the other problem with (cheap) unmanned drones in addition to expense is how trivial it is to warehouse the data they collect on us, even at passive times.
And what's the real difference between cheap airborne drones and even cheaper still city operated webcams mounted on every traffic light, overpass, street light, etc.?
Toss in automatic license plate recognition systems and you will be tracked across the city, no rc helicoptering required.
Cheap, mass quantity, tech and data warehousing computers really does do a number on privacy rights -- if we let it.
P.S. We're absolutely going to let it.
jerry at March 16, 2013 8:11 AM
Well you will be scared by what can be done with 368 cell phone cameras.
Think if they can put up a couple self directed drones over any major city that would automatically rotate out every 8 or 12 hours.
The resolution is at 6 inches, so it can't quite tell whether you're drinking a Coke or a Pepsi. Or a broomstick or a rifle. But think what happens when the cameras improve or they lower the altitude.
The death of anonymity is on the horizon.
Jim P. at March 16, 2013 8:14 AM
Another I passed to Amy is the Common Core curriculum that is coming.
Know the old threat from schools "This will go on your permanent record". It is going to happen!
Jim P. at March 16, 2013 8:19 AM
Haven't y'all seen Person of Interest?
In all cases where you must discuss privacy interests, you'll find people saying, "If you have nothing to hide..."
This is a classic mistake in logic: the issue is not whether what you're doing is "wrong" in some way. The issue is that what you do can be exploited by others in positions of power.
Radwaste at March 16, 2013 8:19 AM
In addition to safety, there are also serious issues of aviation safety.
Even if the drone operator is properly qualified and trained, his incentives to avoid mid-air collisions are not quite as...personal...as those of someone flying an actual aircraft.
There is also a danger that drone operators will be permitted to excessively multitask, operating multiple drones at once and/or catching up on police paper while "flying."
There is probably not much danger to airliners, as long as the drones stay the hell out of approach and departure areas of major airports, but considerable danger to helicopters, which typically fly pretty low.
david foster at March 16, 2013 8:34 AM
WIth an expensive helicopter, someone must decide if its use is cost-effective. Someone will have to explain the use of an expensive helicopter, pilot, fuel, airspace, etc. to a higher-up.
With a cheap drone, you simply send it up. The barriers to use are much lower ... and so are the inhibitions to using it.
Taken to the extreme, this has implications not only with the police, but with news agencies, paparazzi, insurance companies, and even nosy neighbors.
Imagine, you file a workers comp claim for an injured back and the insurance agency sends a drone to hover over your house to investigate you.
Imagine, your spouse now not only can check your email accounts, Facebook and Twitter feeds, but also follow you to and from work.
Run for the hills folks!
Conan the Grammarian at March 16, 2013 9:42 AM
My husband and I were talking about Google Glass. He was saying how excited he is, because it would let him record everything, since his memory is terrible. (I think his memory is fine. He's ADD, so he's only partly focusing on anything at any given moment.) As much as I accept that privacy is dead, it makes me wonder whether we're also seeing the end of the expectation of privacy. I mean, when I can expect that my conversations with my own husband in my own living room will be recorded, that's the end of candid conversation.
MonicaP at March 16, 2013 10:54 AM
"The death of anonymity is on the horizon."
Anonymity died with the invention of the computer. It's just been a slippery slope since then. The only difference is people are just now coming out of their stupor and wondering what the hell happened.
wtf at March 16, 2013 12:34 PM
I need to take some radio and wavelength electronics classes.
I wonder if it is feasible to make a jammer that would be effective in disrupting the drone control signals?
Azenogoth at March 16, 2013 6:14 PM
Simple answer: No
The complex answer: To build a jammer that would affect a drone at 17,500 FT and 15 miles away is practically impossible, because it would effect everything within range and give the authorities a center point.
Why do you think the Navy almost never uses them.
Jim P. at March 16, 2013 8:51 PM
Wild Weasels loves them some jammers!
phunktor at March 17, 2013 6:41 AM
Jim:
You're thinking small. Think DISTRIBUTED. All the rage now.
Unix-Jedi at March 17, 2013 10:01 PM
"The complex answer: To build a jammer that would affect a drone at 17,500 FT and 15 miles away is practically impossible, "
It's not technically infeasible. Don't ask me how I know this.
"In addition to safety, there are also serious issues of aviation safety."
Unmanned aircraft aren't exempt from FAA regs. There are procedures for getting special clearances to fly specific routes, which are mostly used by the military. I think what's happening with a lot of these law enforcement agencies is that they are taking advantage of the regs that allow for model aircraft, which can be flown pretty much anywhere (away from airports and restricted areas) as long as they stay under 400 feet above ground level. These are pretty small aircraft, mostly battery powered and only capable of short-range operation. (Registered manned aircraft aren't supposed to operate below 1000 feet above ground level unless they are taking off or landing, so there's little chance of conflict.) The big tech leap there is the cameras; that is something that the regs didn't anticipate.
Midair collisions between manned and unmanned aircraft have already happened. I'm not aware of any in the U.S., but there have been several in Afghanistan. About a year and a half ago, a C-130 on approach overtook and ran over a Shadow, a medium-sized UAV. The Shadow destroyed the leading edge of the C-130's wing where it hit. The C-130 crew was lucky; it hit right in between the engines, in an area where there is nothing important in the wing leading edge, and it just barely dinged one of the C-130's props. The C-130 landed safely. Had the impact point been two feet to either side, the outcome might have been different.
Cousin Dave at March 18, 2013 9:48 AM
Leave a comment