
Help EFF Find Out How Your Local Police Agency is Using Drones - apievangelist
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/help-eff-find-out-how-your-local-police-agency-using-drones
======
mc32
I don't think we know the implications of drone aircraft used by local police
forces. Not knowing should not take it off the table, it should rather require
oversight to make sure the populace agrees with their mission, if the mission
were to change.

On the one hand, it could save municipalities money by affording a more
effective police force. As mentioned earlier, this is an extension of what
agencies do now --except that they'd be unpersonned. On the other hand, what
are the implications if they were to arm these drones with some kind of lethal
force?

I think if they were limited to reconnaissance, search (maybe not rescue),
aiding in enforcement of law, I don't see how drones become automatically off-
limits.

I'm probably missing something, but those are my thoughts now.

~~~
ekianjo
Isn't that the same debate as CCTVs surveillance in London ? They were placing
surveillance cameras everywhere to say it would be more effective to fight
crime, but actually it does not do anything to prevent it. At most, they can
get some pictures of what ever happened, but that does not prevent it from
happening in the first place.

Having drones is basically a very similar idea, while the camera is moving.

I don't think we need more effective police force. We DO need more effective
control over our government and policies that extend powers over our lives.

~~~
mc32
I think there's some merit to being able to solve crimes more effectively
after the fact --even if they don't prevent them as much as desired. That
police can upload an image of a suspect and see if they have been captured on
camera somewhere is of value. They do that in Japan; it aids the police in
tracking a known criminal, so long as they're not careful (which is very
difficult) -ie take taxis avoid walking in most urban areas, etc.

More effectiveness means fewer people are needed to police a given population,
that reduces the cost --which is typically what people are most sensitive
about. You may be more sensitive about other aspects, but you might not align
with most people in that regard.

There is also Shotspotter technology, it helps in driving police to a firearm
discharge, rather than prevent the discharge. Never the less, it helps police
manage crime better.

------
mindcrime
Man, I wish I had more time to spend at the local hackerspace, and start
learning a bit about aeronautics... I dream of creating a DIY drone that can
go up and shoot down these stupid (Gestapo|Stasi|KGB|$WHATEVER) drones that
our governments are sending up.

~~~
Karunamon
"Gestapo drones"

Welp. This thread was godwinned rather quickly. Have any argument that isn't
based in hyperbole and other logical fallacies?

~~~
koglerjs
I'm trying to balance my obeisance to Godwin's Law with my very strong
criticism/fear of drones in US airspace.

It's hard. I _really_ think the potential for UAV abuse is high.

But it's a Law of the Internet, I guess. You win this round.

~~~
Karunamon
>I _really_ think the potential for UAV abuse is high.

I agree, however there's no legal standing to challenge it on. I'd rather
spend my energy, instead of trying to fight something that is going to pass,
to instead fight the abuses and make sure that the tool can't be misused too
badly. Denying the tool outright is just silly, especially with our current
understanding of privacy.

------
snowwrestler
Ok I get the potential privacy implications, but two things.

1) Aerial surveillance is not new. Ever seen the signs on the highway that say
"speed limit enforced by aircraft?" Local jurisdictions have been flying small
planes and helicopters for law enforcement for decades.

2) What is electronic about this? I mean, I get that the drones use
electronics to gather and store data, but this feels like mission creep at the
EFF to me. There are plenty of battles to fight online.

~~~
revelation
They are much much cheaper to operate compared to an actual plane with a
pilot. That allows for invisible 24/7 surveillance of large areas. And that's
where we get into police state territory.

Its the same reason why you now need a judge to sign off on a GPS tracker.
People made the same argument that police are already free to tail people, but
don't realize the time and cost associated with doing so.

------
cheatercheater
I am glad the EFF is doing this sort of thing. It seems like a good
reactionary stance that should help the society at large. Will the data be
available anywhere publicly? It doesn't seem like the EFF mention that I am
sending them the data under a license. Is that something I have missed, or
have they overlooked this? It seems like an important part of the equation.

