County sheriff finally gets the drone he wanted, ignores privacy concerns

In 2015, Alameda County Sheriff’s could be California's first cops to fly drone.

Read the whole story

 

[aquasub]

If they already acquired an infrared camera, what's to prevent them for mounting thermal cameras to the drones and use them to "look" inside buildings?

 

[JadedTech]

Does anyone else feel like these guys just want to feel special? Like they fell short of being part of a major Agency and now they are playing a game of "Me too!".

 

[lewax00]

Only bad guys have UAV's

True statement. Though, the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the US government, and apparently now the cops.

 

[daarong]

ColdWetDog[/url]":1q8xt876]

CraigJ[/url]":1q8xt876]

d0x[/url]":1q8xt876]I really dony understand why the police would need a drone beyond things like swat raids. It seems ripe for abuse and as history has taught us the police will not hesitate to abuse the hell out of it

I'm sorry, has anybody read the article or only read the headline? The sheriff says specifically that they are search and rescue. It's right there in the article.

Seems that you didn't read TFA carefully. The concern is that his public statement that 'we are only planning on using it for Search and Rescue" is 1) disingenuous since he refused to write a policy that legally limited the department to using for SAR use ONLY and 2) apparently false since he wants to use it to for bomb squad and hostage use, neither typically SAR functions.

Given the ability of the devices to be used for warrantless, covert surveillance and the propensity for law enforcement to engage in that type of behavior, it is reasonable for the public to ask for binding assurances that they will be used for. They're not getting that assurance. They're getting a run around.

Actually it's much worse than that, as this article points out, the department explicitly said the drones are for:

public safety and life preservation missions to include barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooters

Typical attorney-speak... they say "to include" to try to hide the fact that they're literally saying the drones can be used any time it's for "public safety". Just about ANYTHING the police do can be framed as being for "public safety".

They also say the drones are for:

when there is probable cause to believe that [the drones] would be relevant in proving that a certain felony had occurred or is occurring

Again with the attorney-speak. The US government currently uses this 'probable cause' claim to do anything it wants in the name of our safety, despite the bill of rights.

The whole thing is double-speak.

Their plan for some kind of transparency mobile app is actually not bad. I'll bet $100 that it won't happen.

 

[daarong]

aquasub[/url]":3moz7rzi]If they already acquired an infrared camera, what's to prevent them for mounting thermal cameras to the drones and use them to "look" inside buildings?

It's probably in movies and such but it's not possible - maybe you're mistaking seeing a different wavelength and thought it was an IR wavelength.

 

[daarong]

mmiller7[/url]":2dv5j6vp]

CQLanik[/url]":2dv5j6vp]We promise not to use our one hundred thousand dollar drone to spy on you. Unless we really want to.

They could just as easily use a $100 stepladder to spy on people.

As I see it, if they are deliberately flying it where people should have expectation of privacy (over privacy fences and in windows) it should be handled exactly the same as if someone got a ladder or used a full-size helicopter and binoculars to see over a fence or look in the windows. That seems like it ought to be fairly clear-cut.

So as I see it, the drone will let them do the same thing as a helicopter but a whole lot cheaper than fueling and flying a whole helicopter.

That said, I don't think it would be unreasonable to make them put some sort of identifying markers like their department and/or some craft/unit number (police cars have numbers, badges have numbers, real aircraft have numbers...why not) as big as the outer hull allows, so that if there is a dispute or claim of harassment they can determine that it was their craft and who was at the controls at that time.

I too think it should be clear-cut in terms of what they're allowed to do (addressing privacy concerns etc). That's the obvious stuff... the stuff that shouldn't even have to be debated. But it is being debated for some reason...

I think what really bothers me, and probably bothers many others are a few other things:

* If you spot a drone - you have no idea who is manning it. That's problem #1... but let's say the laws are settled next year as expected and by some miracle all government drones must be marked clearly as such. Alright, so what happens when these things get too small for people to determine that its markings say it's the government's? What about when the entire vehicle is too small to reasonably even spot in the first place?

* As the technology gets better, these devices will get longer ranges, longer flight times, smaller sizes, and quieter. The implications for privacy and abuse should be obvious when you're talking about a 1 inch cube quietly sneaking around for days or weeks at a time taking 4K or higher video, plus long range miniature parabolic audio recorder, plus IR video, plus long-wavelength video that can see through walls... etc etc. Technology advances... how about for once the laws get ahead of it rather than their usual crawling behind trying to plug holes and sweep up gigantic messes.

 

[angrydurf]

Spuzzell[/url]":38ehjx7l]I am yet to form a final opinion on drones, but I feel bound to ask whether in the US the police are required to get a warrant to use their helicopters, planes or CCTV cameras?

I can't help but feel that objecting to a camera mounted on a drone but not to the ones mounted on buildings, helicopters and planes is a little.. well... stupid.

No warrant is needed for larger aircraft. CCTV or other cameras depend upon the owner of the camera and footage. For cameras owned/maintained by police (Traffic cameras for instance) they do not require a warrant. For privately owned cameras they can compel access with a warrant but the owner can and when not under investigation often will provide footage without a warrant.

Really rather than throwing a fit over the big bad drones people should focus on meaningful general privacy protections that would also apply to drones. However the simple fact is the vast majority of these privacy concerns have no legal standing to start with. None of them pass muster as being any different than the same cameras mounted on a police cruiser or helicopter only that a drone is less expensive to operate and deploy.

The EFF and other privacy minded orgs are really asking more than this sherrifs office can give. Beyond internal policy the sheriff has no real authority to regulate drone use. the FAA does but would not be able to limit police use under current statute. So really all of this is jsut noise i the hopes that bad PR will shame the sheriff into changing course (unlikely) or get enough people active on teh subject to get legislative action to happen (possible at the state level not so much federal)

 

[jeffrey_jeff_de]

They should hire Security Duck. Goes up in the air, too, and is cheaper.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

d0x[/url]":3dde1jjt]I really dony understand why the police would need a drone beyond things like swat raids. It seems ripe for abuse and as history has taught us the police will not hesitate to abuse the hell out of it

Well, the point is moot seeing as these days they use SWAT even on "rescue puppy" calls.

And the puppy had a gun. That's their story and they're sticking to it, you honor.

 

[jwoode]

Spuzzell[/url]":3uzmoce0]I am yet to form a final opinion on drones, but I feel bound to ask whether in the US the police are required to get a warrant to use their helicopters, planes or CCTV cameras?

I can't help but feel that objecting to a camera mounted on a drone but not to the ones mounted on buildings, helicopters and planes is a little.. well... stupid.

A camera mounted on a building can not trespass on my property and hover outside my windows.

 

[aquasub]

daarong[/url]":1kvfkz7l]

aquasub[/url]":1kvfkz7l]If they already acquired an infrared camera, what's to prevent them for mounting thermal cameras to the drones and use them to "look" inside buildings?

It's probably in movies and such but it's not possible - maybe you're mistaking seeing a different wavelength and thought it was an IR wavelength.

What are you talking about? The article specifically states this:

The sheriff noted that the ACSO had purchased a FLIR infrared camera to attach to the drone.

FLIR sells thermal imaging equipment, too:
http://www.flir.com/surveillance/display/?id=64664

 

[Quiet Desperation]

It's like there's this subculture of guys who grew up reading Dennis The Menace comics as a how to manual. And now they're cops, politicians and the sports stars your kids look up to.

 

[Forensics Person]

The three letter government agencies are law enforcement role models in how they view the constitution, citizen privacy, regulation and public disclosure and truthfulness to oversight authorities, its only a matter of time before many local and state departments develop the same attitude that they are only accountable to themselves on the rules they establish.

To the lullaby for Frere Jacques

Stingers, stingers, LPR's, camera drones, camera drones, federal agencies use them, everyone deny's they abuse them, why can't we? Why can't we?

 

[kasalanda]

"It creates a safer environment for our [Explosive Ordnance Disposal] people," he said. "If you have children, do you allow your children to ride a bike without a helmet?"

Yeah those kids! Now we're conviced. How about this: if you have cops that don't obey privacy, would you allow them to use a drone?

 

[Skiff]

d0x[/url]":38a38x01]I really dony understand why the police would need a drone beyond things like swat raids. It seems ripe for abuse and as history has taught us the police will not hesitate to abuse the hell out of it

One of the best examples I've heard for law enforcement is for gathering evidence at an accident or crime scene.

Being able to fly a small UAV at 50 feet above the crime scene so it can acquire still images with high sidelap and overlap means they can essentially use "Structure From Motion" to recreate a 3D model of the scene. It means that after the site has been cleared, you still have a high-resolution, 3D model of the scene that you can explore and investigate.

This has nothing to do with privacy concerns (of which there are many), but rather a real world use case where UAVs can be a game changer.

 

[shav]

Perhaps umbrellas should be marketed as drone protection domes.

 

[earl grey]

I'm surprised the comments page didn't have "I drink their Kool Aid"

 

[jdale]

earl grey[/url]":147hxm6f]I'm surprised the comments page didn't have "I drink their Kool Aid"

They were at a police-sponsored BBQ. Of course they were drinking the kool aid. Probably literally.

 

[fryhole]

"I am just getting the details of what is happening here," Rodney Brooks, the chief of staff for District 5 Supervisor Keith Carson, told Ars by e-mail. "As a reminder, Supervisor Carson was against the use of the drone when this issue came up before."

Wow. So the country sheriff's office went out and did this without the prior knowledge of the Board of Supervisors. This sheriff may have a history of bucking the law when it suits him to doing his job. he may need to be suspended and investigated.

I'm sorry but law enforcement agencies across the country need to be collectively bitch-slapped and have their perceived authority put in check.

 

[fryhole]

"It creates a safer environment for our [Explosive Ordnance Disposal] people," he said. "If you have children, do you allow your children to ride a bike without a helmet?"

Actually I would except that modern laws say that I can be criminally charged and fined if I do not.

 

[operagost]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":12cm734g]

d0x[/url]":12cm734g]I really dony understand why the police would need a drone beyond things like swat raids. It seems ripe for abuse and as history has taught us the police will not hesitate to abuse the hell out of it

Well, the point is moot seeing as these days they use SWAT even on "rescue puppy" calls.

SWAT teams shoot dogs without provocation. I'm pretty sure they're the last you'd want to call, unless by "rescue" you mean "double-tap".

 

[mjh2901]

I live in this area. Dublin has high patrol training facility, Sherif training facility, alameda county jail, the bomb range and a lot of open land. If they are going to screw around with a drone to figure out what it can do we are unfortunately the best place.

We have lost officers in helicopter crashes. Drones are a much cheaper way to provide those same services without the risk. I think there needs to be more community input but its time for the community to let them know what they want them used for.

 

[NemesisX00]

The ACSO touted its "statistical analysis," finding that of its 500 surveys distributed, 336 were turned in. In response to one question: "Would you be in support of the usage of Unarmed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) to aid in law enforcement efforts in the following circumstances?"

Umm...I'm sorry Mr. Ahern, but that's not what the U in UAV stands for. Either they're stupid or they deliberately put "Unarmed" instead of "Unmanned" in order to make people think the question was about armed vs unarmed.

In both cases, Alameda County is screwed.

 

[JohnnyTheGeek]

The drone thing will at best become annoying and privacy depleting. At worst, they will become safety hazards, and improperly used. The FAA has not even addressed how they could possibly monitor so many devices. I am all for police using them for public patrol's in high crime areas. But given their ability to fly into areas not typically accessed by a officer without a warrant. It will be very hard to create boundary's and I am sure many will challenge the drone policies. For one thing you already have very little required except for a credit card to buy a drone. This in itself begs the question how can the FAA create regulations quickly enough to at least provide some sense of skill required to fly a drone. In the end the FAA will have to create no fly zones around major airports and find ways to detect, fine and prosecute offenders. This on top of large companies like Amazon considering using thousands of drones for deliveries. The drone issue is not just about small aircraft flying around creating hazards. Its about these aircraft having camera's that can pretty much eliminate privacy as we know it even in your homes. The question is, how do you police and regulate that without regulating drones so much they become unusable.

 

[JohnnyTheGeek]

mjh2901[/url]"vp8hrjr]I live in this area. Dublin has high patrol training facility, Sherif training facility, alameda county jail, the bomb range and a lot of open land. If they are going to screw around with a drone to figure out what it can do we are unfortunately the best place.

We have lost officers in helicopter crashes. Drones are a much cheaper way to provide those same services without the risk. I think there needs to be more community input but its time for the community to let them know what they want them used for.

The problem is drones do so much less then a helicopter does. Granted, I see them as useful in searches, added security, even rapid deployment as a officer could transport a drone in their car. But I also see the limitations of drones as not being able to transport people, carry heavy objects, or do much else then put a camera where you need it in a hurry. Possible, in harms way saving a human having to do it. But drones will become a hazard not only to other aircraft but also to other drones if the shear numbers increase rapidly and we have no real way to monitor all that drone traffic.

 

[Griking]

So... people feel that all cops should wear body cameras but they're all up in arms about drones?

 

[thelegendofgabe]

Soo...is it me or does the Sheriff / Sheriff's office come off as pretty cagey is this article?

 

[thelegendofgabe]

Griking[/url]":ij8qeme2]So... people feel that all cops should wear body cameras but they're all up in arms about drones?

Body Cams don't hover above you. And you have to admit, there's a MUCH greater potential for abuse here. Not debating the usefulness of drones, esp in search and rescue situations, but there's significantly less accountability here at a time when police departments have demonstrated overreaching across the country...

 

[bettercitizens]

All it will take is for the cops to be caught swapping images of nude sun bathers and the program will probably be cancelled. Aka http://www.cnet.com/news/cop-charged-wi ... ts-iphone/

 

[jdale]

Griking[/url]":3ul3c1zs]So... people feel that all cops should wear body cameras but they're all up in arms about drones?

Yes.

A body camera records the same things the police are already observing because they are present. The purpose of a drone is to get video that they cannot see, otherwise there would be no point. So from a privacy perspective the camera's only new issue is about video retention and use, whereas the drone also changes what is seen and is easily capable of seeing things that people conventionally think of as private (e.g. view through upper story windows, view over fences) (and I say "conventionally think of" since in principle you could do this with manned aircraft, although the costs are a world apart and therefore the scale is as well).

More to the point, body cameras have as one of their purposes revealing and preventing police misconduct. Unless drones are deployed to monitor police conduct (perhaps it will occasionally happen by accident?), they would not serve that purpose at all. So again, a totally different issue.

 

[morfraen]

As long as it's not armed I don't see the problem, it's way cheaper than tasking a police helicopter to do the exact same job.

 

[bugballou]

Privacy is certainly a concern, but there are other greater concerns. I am surprised the NTSB is not involved here. The operators of these flying machines need to be trained in the safe operation of a drone. I have said it before, but I will repeat myself. Sooner or later one of these monkeys is going to take out a commercial airliner, weather intentional or not the damage will be done. Then everyone will be looking for someone to blame, instead of working toward resolving the issues that can arise from use of these drones.

 

[lewax00]

morfraen[/url]":2t3dwo7d]As long as it's not armed I don't see the problem, it's way cheaper than tasking a police helicopter to do the exact same job.

Then again, higher costs might make them think a little harder about using them, and reduce the chance for misuse.

 

[fxds]

I look forward to reading that someone has shot one of these down, or at least taken control and either crashed or stolen it.

 

[Sobad]

Darkseid[/url]":2wst9nh1]Of course, they`d never tie a STINGER cellular capture device to a drone and fly it near a "suspect" to snoop their calls/texts.

they`d never destroy documentation or paperwork, rather than hand it over to the feds....

they`d never suffer a recording failure from dashcams

all the footage would be public right, since its publicly funded and "our tax dollars at work"



how long before amazon-drones or drone-taxi cabs?

You mean a Stingray? If you are going for the hysterical sarcastic approach, at least name the equipment correctly.

 

[Meeooowwwwwwwwww]

I wonder if some security enthusiast has already drawn up instructions for an anti-drone gun for those 3D printers that law enforcement agencies are always complaining about. Or maybe the NSA has already raided that security guy's apartment?

/sarcasm

 

[Adamsbrew]

IamVendetta[/url]":99vy3ul4]I wished I lived there I would shoot the thing right out of the sky. Great target practice. I think you all should get together and have a drone shoot day. Which is everyday.

I see a lot of people saying that...Not smart at all.. For one thing, this drone will be remotely recording
everything and such a move will get you a felony charge if they happen to identify you ...all for what? Destroying an easily replacable drone, costing the tax payers a few grand?

 

[Drakkenmensch]

bettercitizens[/url]":2m9upeqe]All it will take is for the cops to be caught swapping images of nude sun bathers and the program will probably be cancelled. Aka http://www.cnet.com/news/cop-charged-wi ... ts-iphone/

Or for someone to take them to court for using pictures of the inside of a private home used as evidence in a trial. Or some incredibly unconstitutional crap like this that he feels he's allowed to "because he's the law."

 

[jdale]

Adamsbrew[/url]":13ptk2rz]

IamVendetta[/url]":13ptk2rz]I wished I lived there I would shoot the thing right out of the sky. Great target practice. I think you all should get together and have a drone shoot day. Which is everyday.

I see a lot of people saying that...Not smart at all.. For one thing, this drone will be remotely recording
everything and such a move will get you a felony charge if they happen to identify you ...all for what? Destroying an easily replacable drone, costing the tax payers a few grand?

Makes sense, and yet speed cameras and stop light cameras are common targets. http://blog.motorists.org/everybody-lov ... t-cameras/

A drone camera is unlikely to be looking every direction. Would I do it? No, but I have no doubt that someone with poor impulse control and a lack of common sense will try it.

 

[Wolfman2032]

CQLanik[/url]":10qrubhm]

Spuzzell[/url]":10qrubhm]I am yet to form a final opinion on drones, but I feel bound to ask whether in the US the police are required to get a warrant to use their helicopters, planes or CCTV cameras?

I can't help but feel that objecting to a camera mounted on a drone but not to the ones mounted on buildings, helicopters and planes is a little.. well... stupid.

The difference is that a helicopter is a lot harder to use covertly, and costs a great deal more to deploy. Drones have far lower costs in both money and manpower. It's the same reason that lojacking someone's car is illegal without a warrant, while having police actually follow someone around is not.

The reason placing a GPS tracker on someone's car is illegal without a warrant doesn't have anything to do with is being easy or covert; it's because the police agency is technically taking possession of, modifying, and returning private property. (see United States v. Jones (2012) for details)