Police Launch Drones Over LA 496
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that law enforcement officials have launched a new form of drone aircraft to patrol the skies above Los Angeles. From the article: 'Police say the drone, called the SkySeer, will be able to accomplish tasks too dangerous for officers and free up helicopters for other missions. "This technology could be used to find missing children, search for lost hikers, or survey a fire zone," said Commander Sid Heal, head of the Technology Exploration Project of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "The ideal outcome for us is when this technology becomes instrumental in saving lives."'"
Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:5, Insightful)
But we'll settle for tracking your every move.
Combat Zone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that depends on which citizens and what is the process to keep tabs on their movements. Do they need a warrant and/or probable cause? Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto? In whose hands will the tool be? The "Protect & Serve" type of police or the "Shoot first and ask questions later" kind? Any tool is bad in the wrong hands.
They'll get distracted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or it could be used (Score:0, Insightful)
but actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
"... but will in fact be used to further re-enforce the creeping feeling that LA, and indeed America at large, is turning onto a police state where the citizens are under constant surveillance."
Re:1984? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the LAPD a bunch of pansies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's good and it's bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Drones on the other hand are much less expensive than helicoptors and in many cases are safer. This means that for the cost of one helicoptor the police can run a large number of drones. If those drones can patrol the same area as a helicptor you are now covering a much larger area at any one time. The paranoia comes from this fact and not the fact that we are already being watched from the air.
Why nobody cares (Score:5, Insightful)
So I've given up on trying to convince any but my closest friends. I just don't care anymore. If they want to be this flippant about the fourth ammendment, I'll let them be. To either wake up one day to realize they lost all their rights (and its too late for them to do anything about it), or to stay asleep....either would be a horrible punishment. They deserve it; they've chosen it.
I'm not that worried about it. We are smart enough to be on the inside of it all. We're smart enough to be the ones at the top monitoring all the OTHER stupid citizens. When enough smart ones rise up who care enough to do something about it, I'll either welcome them in or join them to set it the way it should be. Its win/win either way.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:1, Insightful)
If you don't agree with the laws you are supposed to abide by you can either try to get them changes or find somewhere else to live. Trash is what makes this country (USA) much more complicated than it has to be.
Anyone can be a suspect. (Score:3, Insightful)
A creepy uneasy feeling... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll admit, this falls back on your warrant and/or probably cause. But consider the following scenario: A man of middle-eastern descent walks home from work and takes a shortcut through the railyard. Now, this is illegal. We all know that. He's doing it because it saves him a 20 minute walk--no excuse, admittedly. A policeman spots him doing this. What would probably happen? The cop would watch what he does and at some point during his walk home, would pull over and ask him a few questions and say something to the effect of "Stop doing that." Maybe even give him a ticket for trespassing or something.
Same scenario, but this time he's spotted by our "eye in the sky" drone. The operator can't talk to the guy, obviously, but the guy is of middle-eastern descent so he could be a terrorist and, after all, a terrorist could do a lot of damage in a railyard. Maybe I'd best call in the FBI or LA's investigators. Now, of course, we can't just go up to this guy, so we'd better find out more about him, talk to his employer, neighbors, etc. All on the QT, of course, we can't let him know we're watching him.
So, of course, the man's boss is told that they're investigating this guy because he might be a terrorist. Think the boss is going to give that guy the raise he was planning on giving him? Think the neighbors are gonna let their kids play with his kids?
The difference here is that the cop-on-the-beat has some incentive to immediately find out what's going on. The guy behind the camera has nothing to do but make up wild stories.
Re:Or it could be used (Score:5, Insightful)
Drones following Drones. Kafka would be proud.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
"Drones" are pretty much invisible. There's no accountability, because you don't even know they're there. That's where the paranoia comes in-- it's one thing to be watched some times if you know who's doing it (the cop on the beat), it's another to be potentially watched at all times by an invisible "eye in the sky". Not that I think they're going to be trailing average citizens for criticizing the government any time soon, but there can and will be abuses. Los Angeles and Orange County politicians are notorious for fighting dirty, and that includes the upper ranks of the LAPD.
Oh, and it's not just your activities in public (or your backyard) you should be worried about, those cameras are good at peering in windows too. Unless you keep your window shades down at all times (or covered in tin foil, of course.)
more likely revenue generation (Score:2, Insightful)
Or to make flights 100 feet over highways with a laser gun and a telescopic camera. Screw red light cameras - just send an automated plane out over an area with artificially low speed limits and watch the fines come in as the automatically generated and mailed tickets go out by the thousands.
The problem with a lot of traffic law enforcement is that it doesn't have anything to do with enforcing saftey, but with generating revenue for the city/county. Red light cameras usually aren't placed at the intersections with the highest rate of accidents, but rather at ones with high amounts of traffic and low yellow light times.
Not to mention searching private property, since SCOTUS rubber stamped [wikipedia.org] warrantless air searches in 1989. The Bush Administration (deservedly) gets a lot of flack for erroding privacy rights, but the Supreme Court has been eroding the 4th and 5th amendents long before Bush held any office.
Re:Oh cool! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, we get to choose? Awesome! I think they should definitely mandate that only "Protect & Serve" cops get the BigBrotherBots then! Hey, can we extend this sort of legislation to other areas, like the Patriot Act or the DMCA?
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, 'they' refers to the executive branch of the government. Police, FBI, and the various intelligence agencies could all potentially use this tool to collect unauthorized information.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Some tools are always tools of tyranny. 24 hour survellience of public spaces - despite the arguably utilitarian aspects - it antithetical to a free society. I believe the parent is simply pointing out this issue.
Re:Why nobody cares (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a TERRIBLE position to take. If you not only fail to resist, but support this activity, you're helping to create the monster, which may very well eat you when it is finally in place. How many of Stalin's top men found themselves in the gulags they helped to create? How many Jews were indespensible cogs in helping the Nazis suppress other Jews, only to end up sharing the same fate?
Being at the top is a short-term benefit at best, while helping establish something evil is a long-term proposition. It's a case of chosing death, or selling your soul to stay alive. I really hope most people have less self-centred ideals than yours, and can better look at the big picture.
New capabilities? New vulnerabilities too. (Score:3, Insightful)
New capabilities create new vulnerabilities all the time, I don't see anyone talking about what new vulnerabilities these drones open up and how they are going about protecting against them.
The first thing I think of when I hear about remotely controlled vehicles is, "how easily can the control part of 'remote control' be disrupted?" If the idea is that they can use these things against criminals - what is to stop a criminal from buying a pre-made unit from some grey-market in the far-east, or modifying an "almost there" off the shelf transmitter that is capable of disrupting the two way communication required to operate these drones?
Depending on the specifics, one might even be able to impersonate the unit and send your own video feed to the ground-station. At the very least, I would expect that one could simply dump enough noise into the relevant frequencies to severe the link between ground-station and drone - after all the drone is tiny, it can't have too many watts of transmitting power. A smart criminal could use multiple transmitters, and reflections off of buildings and such, making it that much harder for anyone to get a triangulation on the source of the noise too.
Re:Can anyone say SKYNET Corrected link (Score:1, Insightful)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4422539.stm [bbc.co.uk]
The first original link was to the original article, which just showed a toy radio controlled plane (aw how cute) with sheriff badges on it. Useless for nothing. The real deal, is at the link above, which is a link off of that same page labed as: "Allies plough billions into drones". Far more sinister and real. Billions. Billions. Why spend billions? I'll tell you why.
These are the ulitmate in killing machines, because those driving them are in no way in harms way, those driving them can be supervised from over their shoulder like in a telemarketing calling center, and it becomes just a laptop war agame to them... and these things can kill will impunity at great distances. If the machine crashes or is destroyed, it can and will simply be replaced with one from a factory that is churning them out under government military contracts at alarming rates.
It does not question orders, it does not fear, it comes after you and it comes after you to kill you. It does one thing and one thing only, spy and destroy. More than likely, they will travel in packs, so shooting one down, you will only be swarmed by others in the local area. Guns can be mounted on them. Cameras surely. Or more than likely, an explosive charge, so like with their other assasination attempts with these things, all they have to do is fly it near you and detonate it. Hostile element purged.
They can be mass produced. They will be mass produced. And once thhey are automated to patrol and refuel on their own autonomously, they will be mass produced. What are you going to do that is looking at you? Shoot one down? That is destruction of state property, just like breaking the glass in the back of a police cruiser to get out because they are infringing upon your freedom. They will then run a slander game on you, and criminalize you, if you are caught, and lock you away in their police state prisons which extend like warehouses for miles and miles. I've seen them from the inside... its like a warehouse of people that never ends... and ocean... like looking at the clones being trained in Star Wars Episode 2. You wouldn't believe it until you saw it with your own eyes. The words "my god" come to mind from my memory.
The lines have been drawn in the sand. Either you fight back, or you die under their foot. Whats it going to be?
Do it now, because ten years from now, it will be way too late.
Or you can keep doing what you are doing now, playing on your computer and bickering like squaking hens about this or that, with no real clue as to the war going down on the street today against the pigs.
footnote:
Do you know the word "patrolling" and patrol came from "patty rollers", which were bands of white enforcers who patrolled the roads in the deep south for any slave off his plantation without a permit (read, ID card signed by his master). If any were caught without such a writ, they would be lynched and hanged or worse. This practice was picked up by the modern police force, which now assignes "routes" to cops to patrol continously and project power on a fine grain level, so that there will always be a pig within 5 minutes of any situation. This is called their "beat".
Re:Pointing out the not-so-obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, I'll tell the local cop on the beat, who might have missed this guy, to go check him out.
Sure, it could go down as you describe. Or not.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Hypothetically, if all our laws were just, and such 'protective systems' were only used to actually protect, then yes, people doing 'nothing wrong' would have nothing to worry about. But our laws are not just. Each day, the western world becomes less democratic and free, and more totalitarian. The separation of powers ( parliament and courts ) and the separation of church and state are disappearing. Look at the elevated position of Emperor Bush, claiming he is 'commander in chief'. This is a horrific attach on these important separations - the republicans are attempting to seize ultimate power for themselves and make the judiciary irrelevant. They say that military justice is above and beyond civilian justice.
The merging of church and state is also very worrying. The republicans use religious arguments for attacking civil liberties such as homosexual relationships, womens' right to choose abortion. They pander to the religious right on issues such as recreational drug use. All these issues ( in this paragraph ) have NOTHING to do with the state. The state can fuck off and find somethinng else to do. Sure - these are issues for religions to discuss, and I welcome their advice. However I respectfully reject most of it on the grounds that it is absolute bullshit. Take homosexual relationships. I'm not gay - far from it. But I argue strongly for people's right to do whatever the hell they want to do, because I believe in 'freedom'. And by 'freedom' I don't mean US corporation's rights to invade everything from our privacy to other countries in the search of profits. I mean individual freedom
In light of the above issues, I fail to see how anyone other than the religious fundamentalists and extreme right could be anything other than horrified
The very uncomfortable truth is that there are a LOT of people, breaking a LOT of laws, every day. What they are doing is socially acceptable, and yet at the same time, completely illegal. Say I light up a joint in my backyard
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with "being ashamed", and everything to do with: A) Obeying local decency laws; and B) Respecting your neighbors, who may not want to see you buck-nekkid. Geez, what is SO hard to understand about that? Even beautiful people who aren't the slightest bit "ashamed" of their bodies still need to respect the law in the matter, and respect their neighbors. It's part of living in a civilized world with other families in close proximity, if you want them to respect your rights and wishes then you should respect theirs.
I completely agree with you on this, so no rant needed. Though I would like to add in support of your argument, why should we be treated like criminals if we've done nothing wrong?
OH NOES, DON'T INCONVENIENCE THE PO-LICE! Spare me. Last I heard, the police were public servents, whose job is generally to protect and serve the public, ie. the taxpayers, who pay their wages. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing but utmost respect and admiration for honest, wanna-do-the-right-thing cops... but also utmost contempt for those who abuse their power. Make no mistake, a police officer IS in a position of power, and like all such positions that power can be -- and unfortunately often is -- abused. That is why we, the people for whom the police work, must ensure that the proper checks and balances remain in place. It's also why many voice concern about aerial spy drones over civilian population areas. And rightly so.
NO. The government's job is NOT to "keep you and me safe". It's to protect our freedoms and, most importantly, allow us to live our lives as we wish. There is a significant difference, try to wrap your brain around that difference. We can engage in an email discussion if you wish, but that difference is critical. Here's another hint: It's not the government's job to keep us bodily free from harm, it's the gov't's job to keep us free from oppression and tyranny. Physical safety is NOWHERE guaranteed in the Constitution, nor should it be expected. With that clear lack of expectation, it falls on each of us individually to protect ourselves; the police are not superhuman, they cannot be everywhere at once, nor instantly know the law-abiding citizens from the criminals -- THAT determination falls on our court systems. But this is getting off into a whole different rant; I digress.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. Just wow.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:1, Insightful)
It wouldn't surprise me if the fact that you wouldn't riot over King and his treatment yourself has a lot more to do with where you live, how you are your friends/family are treated when having to interact with the police, and the economic conditions of where you live than any real difference in how you might feel about the King case compared to the people in the riots.
I'm not saying the riots were the right thing to do or accomplished much of anything good, but I wouldn't be too hasty to in thinking that it's something you'd never do when you haven't experienced the conditions that those people did. You'd be surprised how much it can warp you when some or most of the authorities in a community don't think you're worth protecting because of the color of your skin, and don't hesitate in harrassing and belittling you because they assume you're part of all the things going wrong in the community.
Re:Pretty Cool... (Score:3, Insightful)
Weren't there aerial drones in the short lived show "Dark Angel"?
Re:Umm, no thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait for the next thing. The Democrats are about to treat environmentalism like a religion in the same way Bush has been using jesus; if they can score enough votes next election... watch their campain for this.
Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, my state has anti-stalking laws. And anti-harrassment laws. My guess is that the laws only apply to us citizens, though, and that the government can stalk and harrass us as it pleases, simply because it chooses to do so.
Canada, for all of its faults, looks better and better with every passing day....
Max
Orwell was right (Score:1, Insightful)
George Orwell, 1984, Ch. 1
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Middle Eastern Guy: WTF?
*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
I'll break it to you gently... people make fun of President Bush every day, it's not a crime in the United States. It won't get you arrested or shot unless you pair it with some other blindingly stupid activity (run at the police waving a handgun while telling anti-Bush knock knock jokes) or make a statement that could be considered an actual threat [newsday.com] against the President. In that case, you might have a visit and a chat [secretservice.gov] with someone, but you won't be executed. Now, if you don't believe that telling jokes about the President is fine, just take a look at the TV. President Bush is constantly used as the butt of jokes, but Leno/Letterman/Stewart/etc. aren't broadcasting from undisclosed or hidden locations, are they? Making a joke about the President doesn't make you a hero, victim, or target. (BTW - You do realize the Muslims can be any race, from any place on the globe, right?) Voting for President Bush's political opponents, lobbying against his policies, peaceful/lawful demonstrations are all fine.
What will get you into trouble is plotting to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens. In that case, telling jokes is irrelevant, the problem is the plot or attempt to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens.
In short, humor=OK, bombing=no way!
Most Americans get this.
Re:Or it could be used (Score:2, Insightful)
More likely, expect it would be used in revenue enhancement, driving infractions with exhorbitant ticket costs, etc.
Re:Or it could be used (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Driving 90 minutes in LA means traffic is going nowhere while driving 90 minutes in NYC means there is just no parking space.